Economic Freedom Fighters v Parliament of the Republic of South Africa and Others

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) brought an urgent application for an interim interdict to restrain Parliament from implementing chapters 1 to 2B of the Joint Rules of Parliament, 6th Edition 2023, adopted on 6 December 2023. These rules, among other things, prohibited members from interrupting the President during the Opening of Parliament Address and the State of the Nation Address (SONA). The EFF argued the rules were adopted to target and victimise it for exercising political speech and were unconstitutional. The application was brought three court days before SONA, scheduled for 8 February 2024. The EFF had been absent from key meetings where the rules were deliberated, claiming its members had other commitments. The respondents opposed the application, contending the urgency was self-created and the rules were necessitated by the EFF's history of disruptive, violent conduct during SONA since 2015, aimed at collapsing the parliamentary proceedings.

• Whether the applicant was entitled to urgent relief given that the urgency was self-created.
• Whether the applicant had made out a case for an interim interdict to restrain Parliament from implementing the Joint Rules.
• Whether the court should intervene in the internal proceedings of Parliament in light of the separation of powers doctrine.
• Whether the amended Joint Rules violated members' constitutional right to freedom of speech.
• Whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying judicial intervention in parliamentary processes.

The application for an interim interdict is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Before granting an interim interdict restraining the exercise of legislative public power, a court must be satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances and a strong case for review likely to succeed, and must carefully scrutinize whether the interdict will disrupt legislative functions and implicate the separation of powers. An applicant must demonstrate material and irreversible harm that cannot be remedied after completion of the process. Self-created urgency and a failure to substantiate claims of targeted victimisation, coupled with the availability of alternative remedies (such as debating the SONA afterwards), will defeat such an application.

The court remarked that even if a matter should be struck from the roll for lack of urgency, a court should exercise its discretion to hear it if the interests of justice demand, given the facts, nature, and importance of the matter. It also noted that the insistence by only the Applicant to 'robustly engage' the President during the SONA, without knowledge of the substance of the address, creates an inescapable conclusion that 'it is more about theatrics and disruption, than meaningful engagement'.

This case reinforces the constitutional principle of separation of powers in South African law, particularly the limited scope for judicial intervention in parliamentary internal arrangements and proceedings. It confirms that courts will only grant interim interdicts against Parliament in exceptional cases and underscores the principle that Parliament is empowered under sections 45(1), 57(1), and 70(1) of the Constitution to determine and control its own internal arrangements and procedures. It also clarifies that the SONA is a ceremonial address, not a debate, and that the right to freedom of speech of members of Parliament is not violated by rules preventing interruptions during such an address, provided there is a subsequent opportunity for debate.