25 June 2010

After one year of relentless attempts to change them, I have now launched a High Court application to declare the unconstitutionality of the Rules of the National Assembly which have deprived Members of Parliament of our constitutional right and duty to introduce legislation.

The respondent is the Speaker of the National Assembly, the hon.  Maxwell Sisulu.  This is a technical necessity.  No disrespect is meant towards the Speaker or criticism towards him personally implied. 

 I have called him to signify this to him personally.  The problem is institutional and is rooted in the autocratic tradition of the pre-1994 apartheid parliament.

As they now stand, the Rules allow only government to introduce legislation.

An MP wishing to introduce a Bill needs to first obtain the permission of the Private Members' Committee which is controlled by the majority party.  In addition, this Committee routinely asks government whether it should grant such permission, and follows what governments suggests.  Therefore, an MP cannot introduce a Bill unless permitted by government. Moreover, an MP who is not from the ruling party cannot introduce a Bill without the permission of the ruling party.  This subverts parliamentary democracy.

Yet, our Constitution gives each MP the right to introduce a Bill with  no qualification other than an MP cannot introduce a money Bill.  

Other democratic parliaments operate in the same manner.

This is not a party political issue but part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen the centrality of parliament and democracy for the benefit of all political parties.

The litigation was caused by a few paragraphs Bill I tried to introduce directly in the Trade & Industry Committee to improve on the National Credit Act and assist people at this time of economic crisis.

The power of introducing legislation is essential to the function of an opposition MPs, for if a Bill introduced by such MP has merit the governing majority will either pay a political price by rejecting it or will have to recognize his contribution by accepting it, both of which are relevant and valuable actions in terms of political accountability and democracy.

Allowing MPs the democratic power to introduce legislation, as our Constitution does, has no adverse impact on the functioning of Parliament, for, according to standard parliamentary procedures, each portfolio committee with expertise on the Bill's subject matter can dispose of the Bill in a matter of minutes simply by voting the Bill's non-desirability and without having to analyze its provisions. 

The possibility of demonstrating to the electorate that an MP has introduced legislation on critical issues and of canvassing public opinion on a Bill is vital for MPs role and the growth of democracy. 

This requires that the approval or rejection of a Bill be conducted within the committee with the expertise in the Bill's subject matter where the Bill's merits can be fully evaluated, rather than by a general committee like the Private Members' Committee with no specific expertise. 

An MP's right to provoke debate on national issues with the competent portfolio committee is vital to protecting political minorities as required by the Constitution, also in consideration of the fact that under present practice a member of a committee who is not a member of the majority party has no right to otherwise place matters on a committee's agenda. 

Copy of the pleadings can be found at www.ifp.org.za. Please click on http://ifp.org.za/NOMSpeaker.pdf and http://ifp.org.za/FoundingAffidavit10-6-10.pdf.