Division on 'fit and proper' requirement for Impeachment Committee MPs

[00:00:00]Parliament's National Assembly Rules Committee has hit a stalemate choosing not to adopt a proposed fit and proper requirement for MPs serving on the presidential impeachment committee. Now, while the DA pushed for higher standard of integrity given the severity of the Palapala farm matter, the MK party and EFF strongly opposed this move calling it unconstitutional. We speak now to a DA's parliamentary leader George Michalakis about why this rule was important to the party. Uh George, thank you very much for your time this morning. Why indeed is this rule important to the DA?

[00:00:40]>> Good morning Nom Phumulelo and good morning to all the viewers.

[00:00:43]It's quite important because obviously the impeachment committee deals with the impeachment of the head of state and therefore it requires in our view members of the National Assembly who maintain a higher standard of ethics and are fit and proper. It's a It's a term defined in law that requires a higher standard of ethics from members to serve on this committee. It's not just a normal committee of Parliament and we believe that for this specific committee it requires members of that ethical standard.

[00:01:21]>> Yeah, I mean George, the speaker has referred this issue back then for further research. Does this delay then stall the actual work of the Palapala impeachment process?

[00:01:33]>> Not at all.

[00:01:34]We have received legal advice that obviously the requirement of fit and proper will not be applied retrospectively.

[00:01:43]So therefore the committee as it is currently constituted will be for now the committee that will be dealing with this current impeachment, but we must remember that the rules that Parliament is currently putting together um not only apply to this impeachment process, but also all future impeachment processes.

[00:02:02]>> What the speaker has also raised concern about George is just the um who will be the final arbiter um of of of this then rule, right? Because it becomes a bit of a a moral question. How do you resolve her concerns?

[00:02:21]>> Well, firstly, the suggestion was that um the first obvious choice uh lies with political parties. I do think it's important for political parties when they nominate uh members to uh such an important committee um that they also uh meet the requirement of rationality um and also consider very carefully who they put on that uh committee. But, we also made the suggestion ultimately that um it must become a a decision of the house that the names that are proposed for the committee are not just simply sent to the speaker, uh but that a vote uh in the house takes place on whether those members are the the appropriate members um to send forward. Uh we have similar precedent for nominations to the Judicial Services Commission, for example, um which requires members to be fit and proper. And we do believe that the house should be the final arbiter.

[00:03:18]>> Mhm. It begs the question, George, about why we find ourselves um picking and choosing uh the MPs who are fit and proper to sit on this impeachment uh committee to begin with because should they even be public representatives if they are um if they are questionable in terms of their stature, um you know, and the like. If they are not fit and proper individuals to to be public representatives to begin with.

[00:03:49]>> Indeed. I mean, um it is a very very good question. Um should people who are not considered fit and proper uh be serving in in the National Assembly to begin with? The DA has proposed a a constitutional amendment um to suggest and include um in section 47 of the Constitution, uh for example, uh persons who were removed um from office for not um honoring their constitutional mandate um or their constitutional oath. Um and also people who have already been impeached um from serving in the National Assembly. Um this was raised in the committee. However, our argument at this point is that although the Constitution currently only excludes um certain people um from serving in the National Assembly, that that should not hamper um this specific rule from being put in place. Um there are committees in Parliament which requires a higher standard, the Ethics Committee, the State Security Committee, and our argument was um even if the Constitution um currently allows, um for example, um impeached former judges to serve in the National Assembly, um it can already make that requirement of fit and proper with regard to this specific um committee because it needs to um consist of members um that can maintain a higher standard of ethics.

[00:05:14]>> And since you say, George, that this uh rule won't apply retrospectively, does the entire debate then actually impact uh the current Ramaphosa saga?

[00:05:26]>> No, I don't think that there is any reason for us um not to continue with the impeachment uh committee. Obviously, there is the question whether um certain nominations to uh the impeachment committee and certain members serving on it uh was a rational decision um and meets the requirement of rationality um it it currently, uh which I think is already a requirement in place. However, the impeachment committee as it currently stands should not be hampered from continuing with its work but as I say obviously it is a rule that will be in place for future impeachment committees and I think that is the important part is the principle was widely accepted and it is the principle that should be upheld. Parliament has a duty to ensure that our processes are above board and we maintain the highest possible standards.

[00:06:23]>> And if a charge must relate to conduct which was performed in person, does the shield then does that shield rather the president who gives verbal orders?

[00:06:35]>> Well, I mean the requirement that that he has to be in in in in person, obviously we did discuss this.

[00:06:44]It also includes obviously any orders that were given through the president and in my view it should also include any actions of any other person that the president had knowledge of but that requirement was also discussed and the committee then resolved that that obviously that should also be included.

[00:07:06]>> Yeah.

[00:07:08]Is the rules committee's decision a you know to drop then this requirement of for now a major political defeat for yourselves?

[00:07:16]>> No, I do think that overall the principle was accepted by almost all of the parties. For obvious reasons the MKN EFF had their objections and I do think that the only reason under which a party would be against requirement of fit and proper for such a committee is if they have knowledge that some of their members might not be fit and proper, but I think that's a question for them why they are so opposed to this specific requirement, but I don't see it as as a defeat for us. The principle was very very widely supported both in the rules committee and the subcommittee on the rules, and I do foresee that going forward for future impeachment committees and impeachment processes that the fit and proper requirement will be in place. And that is thanks to to the DA's proposal. So, I'm very very happy with with that inclusion going forward. So, the speaker did not say that it will not be included in the future, but at this point some of the requirements just have to be be tied up, and the rules just have to be secured so there's no ambiguity about how that could be implemented.

[00:08:33]>> All right. George, thank you very much for your time this morning. That is the DA's parliamentary leader, George Michalakis.