The Democratic Alliance (DA) Gauteng has submitted its replying affidavit in its fight to have a motion of censure against the delinquent Gauteng Health MEC, Nomantu Ralehoko, debated in the Gauteng Provincial Legislature. The affidavit is found :SKM_360i25043015060. Other Court documents related to this matter can be found SKM_360i25043015070.
DA Gauteng Shadow MEC for Health, Dr Jack Bloom MPL, had tabled a motion, which the Gauteng Speaker disallowed. In terms of the motion, the MEC for Health was to be censured. A recent court judgement found that the MEC had not spent the R250 million budgeted to treat cancer patients. By her admission, likely, many of the patients have since died as a result.
The Speaker claims that the legal principle Audi Alteram Partem, or “let the other side be heard”, empowered her to disallow the DA’s motion. But the legislature’s rules only permit her to disallow a motion that contravenes one of the standing rules. This principle is not one of them. In any case, the MEC and her colleagues get the opportunity to reply to the motion, and her side of the matter will indeed be heard.
The role of the MEC is not a career job appointment. It is an executive office elected by public vote. This MEC is the public’s custodian of taxpayer money set aside to provide healthcare. The entire constitutional framework requires a politician’s performance to be judged in a public arena, which in this case is the GPL. The outcome of the DA motion is not a firing but is an expression of opinion by those whom the public has put in place to hold her, as an executive officer, to account.
The Speaker must be fair. There is a difference between being fair to someone in an executive office and shielding that person. In this instance, the Speaker has abused her powers to protect the executive. The Speaker’s decision is misguided and without precedent.
By shutting down the debate, she achieved the opposite of what the Audi rule is intended to achieve. Her actions have ensured that one side of the debate, namely, the proposers of the motion, will not be heard.
The truth is that the ANC do not want their politicians to be accountable, certainly not in the public space. This motion is about the utilisation of public resources. The public must be able to judge for themselves.
The Speaker replied to our affidavit, but she has said nothing new. The MEC also weighed in, but her plea was for the court to judge her performance. But the correct place to judge her performance is in the Legislature, as per section 133 (2) of the RSA Constitution. The current case before the court is about the Speaker’s ruling, not the MEC’s performance.
Heads of argument will now be drawn up, and it is anticipated that a court date will be set within the next two to three weeks.