The Leader of the Opposition, Ms Lindiwe Mazibuko MP, tabled a motion of no confidence in the President under section 102(2) of the Constitution. The motion was placed before parliamentary structures but the Programme Committee deadlocked on scheduling it for debate and vote. The Speaker concluded that, absent consensus, the motion could not be scheduled. Mazibuko urgently approached the Western Cape High Court seeking an order compelling the Speaker to ensure the motion was debated before the end of the parliamentary term. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the Speaker lacked the power to schedule the motion unilaterally, though it recognised the urgency and constitutional importance of such motions. Mazibuko then approached the Constitutional Court through direct appeal, direct access, and a section 167(4) application, arguing that the Rules were constitutionally deficient and that Parliament had failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation.
Leave to appeal directly was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The Speaker was found not to have the power to schedule the motion unilaterally. No substantive relief was granted compelling Parliament to debate the motion of no confidence.
The case clarifies the limits of the Speaker’s powers and affirms that scheduling parliamentary business lies with designated parliamentary committees, reinforcing parliamentary autonomy under section 57 of the Constitution. It underscores the constitutional importance of motions of no confidence while respecting separation of powers and internal parliamentary processes. The judgment also highlights that constitutional accountability mechanisms must be facilitated through appropriate parliamentary rules.