African Transformation Movement v The Speaker of the National Assembly and Others

The African Transformation Movement (ATM) tabled a motion of no confidence in the President of the Republic of South Africa in terms of s 102(2) of the Constitution. The ATM requested that the vote on the motion be conducted by secret ballot. The Speaker of the National Assembly declined the request, on the basis that the ATM had failed to provide compelling reasons or evidence justifying a secret ballot, effectively placing an onus on the ATM to prove the need for secrecy. After the Speaker refused to reconsider her decision, the ATM brought an urgent application in the Western Cape High Court to review and set aside the Speaker’s decision. The High Court dismissed the application. The ATM then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order reviewing and setting aside the Speaker’s decision, remitting the ATM’s request for a secret ballot to the Speaker for a fresh decision, and directing the Speaker to pay the ATM’s costs.

This case clarifies the constitutional and administrative-law principles governing the Speaker’s discretion to determine voting procedures in motions of no confidence. It confirms that there is no onus on a requesting party to prove the need for a secret ballot and that the Speaker must adopt a neutral starting point and consider the circumstances afresh in each case. The judgment reinforces the principle that a misunderstanding of the nature of a discretion constitutes reviewable irrationality and strengthens accountability mechanisms within Parliament.