The meat of presidential question time lies not in the scripted replies prepared in response to questions that must be submitted in advance, but the impromptu and unscripted answers to follow-up questions.

It was inevitable that President Jacob Zuma would be asked by the opposition about a secret ballot in the pending motion of no confidence when he appeared in the House for his question time on Thursday. By that time, in the wake of the earlier Constitutional Court ruling, the United Democratic Movement (UDM), which brought the case with the EFF and Cope, and the DA had already asked Speaker Baleka Mbete to urgently schedule the no confidence motion.

Parliament, in a public statement responding to the judgment, said: “Now that the court has clarified that the Speaker has the powers under the Constitution to conduct motions of no confidence by way of a secret ballot, she will, accordingly, ensure the judgment is given effect.”

In broad strokes, the court as expected ruled that the decision on a secret ballot was not for the judges to make, but was the Speaker’s decision. This was in keeping with the judiciary’s long-standing scrupulous approach to the separation of powers. Even though Parliament has found itself at the losing end of court battles before, never have the courts told the national legislature what to do given Section 57 of the Constitution that puts Parliament in charge of its own internal arrangements.

The ANC, both in Parliament and nationally, and the ANC Women’s League, in their responses chose to focus on this separation of powers between the legislative and judicial sphere’s of state.

But this is nothing but a political smokescreen: the landmark significance of the Constitutional Court ruling lies in its emphasis on the duty of MPs to exercise their personal conscience, and their oath of office to serve, affirm and uphold the Constitution.

“Nowhere does the supreme law provide for them (MPs) to swear allegiance to their political parties, important players though they are in our constitutional scheme. Meaning, in the event of conflict between upholding constitutional values and party loyalty, their irrevocable undertaking to in effect serve the people and do only what is in their best interests must prevail. This is so not only because they were elected through their parties to represent the people, but also to enable the people to govern through them, in terms of the Constitution,” the unanimous Constitutional Court judgment said on Thursday morning.

In doing so, the country’s most senior judges effectively rejected President Zuma’s contention that democracy is based on numerical majorities as he had argued in his earlier court papers. Citing party-political constitutions and discipline, Zuma argued that “this obliges a member of a party… to remain loyal to such party consonant with the expectations of voters who gave their support to the party. The obligation of loyalty to party is not inimical to the notion of an accountable, responsive, open and democratic government”.

But just a few hours after the Constitutional Court judgment, Zuma said nothing should change and the upcoming motion of no confidence must be conducted as the seven others he faced – by open vote.

“We should do what we have done in the past. Because I see no convincing reasons why we should change… You are trying to get a majority you don’t have. I think it is not fair…. Let us vote the way we have done in the past,” Zuma responded to a direct question on his view on a secret ballot from Freedom Front Plus Chief Whip Corné Mulder, adding later: “You can go to court, the court will bring you back to the legislature…”

And herein lies the rub.

The ANC has the majority of seats in Parliament, 249 of 400. A no confidence motion requires a simple 201 majority of MPs. Even a joint opposition is at least 50 votes short to carry a motion of no confidence in the president in terms of Section 102 of the Constitution. The opposition is counting on support from ANC MPs disgruntled with the state of play in the governing party – from the fall-out of the midnight Cabinet reshuffle that changed the political leadership in the finance portfolio to factional shenanigans ahead of December’s ANC elective national conference. The EFF, UDM and even the DA indicated earlier this year that there would be sufficient numbers to carry the motion of no confidence amid appeals to vote according to conscience, not party line. With the South African Communist Party (SACP) on Thursday welcoming the Constitutional Court judgment – “(T)he Court went further in reminding MPs (all MPs regardless of their political party) that their oath of office is to the people of South Africa and not to a political party” – it remains to be seen what position its members in Parliament on an ANC ticket will take.

But it is also a traditional ANC habit to close ranks when under pressure. There was a standing ovation for Zuma from ANC parliamentary benches, filled for this occasion, even before the president said a word. And the ANC in Parliament has indicated its caucus stood firmly behind rejecting choice in a secret vote.

“As ANC there’s a party-political system… and we are bound by this party-political system,” ANC Chief Whip Jackson Mthembu told eNCA. “On this we will not vote with the opposition to remove our government from power.”

A cocksure Zuma told MPs people “love the ANC”, dismissing amid giggles opposition criticism – “Just politicking as an opposition. What else can you do, actually?” – and also rejecting an appeal by African Independent Congress (AIC) MP Mandlenkosi Galo to step down.

“The ANC elected me to be the president. And the ANC, the day it thinks I can’t be the president, will remove me. It has not done so. So I can’t do so (step down). I was not elected by anyone but the ANC,” Zuma told the opposition. “Don’t even worry about anything. Just sit in peace and rest… There’s no problem.”

The assertion of the ANC’s dominance in South Africa’s body politic continued in Zuma’s response to a follow-up question by DA leader Mmusi Maimane.

Zuma said, “If we went to elections now you lose them (councils) because people realise the mistake they’ve made. Next elections you’ll never have these metros. You are encouraging us to cause a re-election in those place[s],” said Zuma. “… the people of South Africa have not made a mistake in electing me as president. I am fit and I’m doing it proper.”

Aside from such confident party-politicking, little new emerged in Thursday’s presidential Q&A, largely a repeat of previous statements by Zuma and his administration. And the blame for unemployment, low economic growth and the “technical recession” lay in global factors and the lasting consequences of apartheid.

Trotted out again was the Nine-Point Plan and the National Development Plan (NDP) as was the one-stop shop for investors Zuma launched earlier this year as an example of a working government, alongside its efforts at “deepening the effort at social partnership”. South Africa’s commitment to a nuclear build “at a pace and scale that the country can afford” was repeated amid assertions anti-nukes protesters lack understanding that this was “a business that will help bring money, but also help bring security and energy”.

Zuma dismissed personal criticism – “There was nothing that found me involved in the Nkandla matter” – and fended off claims that he pulled strings so his son Duduzane Zuma could benefit from business deals: “Never, I’ve never done that… Because he is a son of a president there is no law that says he can’t get involved in business.”

But it got curious on State Capture. Even as Zuma questioned the authenticity of #GuptaLeaks, charging that they were untested, he indicated that these emails would be part of the commission of inquiry “we decided to establish”. He later added: “The president has taken a decision to establish the judicial commission of inquiry, and is about to announce when it is to start.”

During his parliamentary Q&A Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa indicated that the president was consulting. Earlier this year the presidency in a public statement said Zuma was not opposed to a commission of inquiry as the public protector’s State of Capture report stipulates, but was concerned that leaving the selection of the judge to head such an inquiry to the Chief Justice would set a wrong precedent. For this reason Zuma took on review to court the public protector’s remedial action on such a commission of inquiry. That hearing is set down only in early October. It remains unclear how Zuma’s statement that he had decided on a commission of inquiry, and was “about to announce” it, would be possible given these court proceedings.

From State Capture to secret ballot, the president’s answers have only raised more questions. DM

Photo: President Jacob Zuma responds to Questions for Oral Reply in the National Assembly in Parliament, Cape Town (Photo: GCIS)