How President Jacob Zuma Survives Impeachment

Jacob Zuma

Jacob Zuma

The motion by opposition parties to impeach President Jacob Zuma proved unsuccessful at Parliament on Tuesday

Parliamentarians did not disappoint on Tuesday, shouting their points instead of stating them, while others spoke without calling for points of order.

In the end, 233 members voted against the motion, while 143 voted in favour and there were no abstentions.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) called a motion to impeach President Jacob Zuma for failing to uphold the Constitution over the Nkandla matter.

Some members of Parliament also attacked National Assembly speaker Baleka Mbete, as they believed that she should not be presiding over them following the Constitutional Court ruling that Parliament had failed to ask Zuma to pay back a portion of the money that was used to pay for non-security features for his private home in Nkandla, KwaZulu-Natal.

ALSO READ  Why White People Must Stop Being Cry-Babies

Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), lashed out at Mbete, saying she was the one who protected Zuma. They also asked her to recuse herself from the process. “You don’t deserve to be in that seat because you aren’t supposed to be the presiding officer here,” the EFF’s Floyd Shivambu said, adding that everything Mbete did was illegal.

During the debate, Malema pleaded with the ANC to vote in favour of Zuma’s impeachment. He asked them to listen to struggle icons such as Ahmed Kathrada, who’s called for Zuma to step down.

The general sentiment has been that Zuma should step down following the court ruling.

However, the president made it clear on Friday that he wasn’t going anywhere and that he’d abide only by the ruling. Zuma held a press conference on Friday and told South Africans that he would do as the court has asked him to and pay the money, once the national treasury has made a determination.

“In light of this judgement, it puts an end to any other interpretation of this matter,” Zuma said. “I also respect the finding that failure to comply with the remedial action taken against me by the public protector is inconsistent with the Constitution of the republic. I wish to emphasise that I never knowingly or deliberately set out to violate the Constitution.”

source: Destinyman

You Might Also Like