Response to a Democracy 101 lesson for the EFF
I won't repeat what Shareef Blankenberg has said to avoid tautology and rhetoric's. Clearly he misunderstood the issues as argued by EFF on not recognizing the procedure, process and the so called disciplinary hearing. This is my understanding of what is being argued by the EFF.
In a constitutional democracy like SA we have to abide by the rules in this instead I will try to enlightened you firstly in the history of our country and secondly on the issues relating to the rule of law.
Robert Sobukwe when addressing the court had said "I challenge the right of this court to hear my case, Firstly I fear that I will not be given a fair trial. Secondly, I consider myself neither legally nor morally bound to obey laws made by a parliament in which I have no representation." (Old Synagogue Court Pretoria 7th November 1962) This would be easy for you to understand since you will agree that the system then was oppressive and undemocratic. The question is, are we experiencing the same situation now.
Fast forward the events of the 07 October 2014 a month before what Sobukwe has said in a colonial court in 1962, the EFF has said it will not abide by the rules as they are undemocratic and unconstitutional which has nothing to do with issues of representations in parliament but unjust and unconstitutional laws. The principles of natural justice concern procedural fairness and ensure a fair decision is reached by an objective decision maker.
In the current format of the rules of parliament and the procedure adopted by the powers and privileges committee of parliament these principles were not followed, maintaining procedural fairness protects the rights of individuals and enhances public confidence in the process which if one understand the representation by the EFF is not there and would not be achieved by insisting on proceeding with the hearing.