“We cannot spend two hours on points of order,” said Madame Speaker Rachel Madinda-Isaacs when DA Councillor Brian Fargher asked her why she was ignoring rules that govern council meetings.
“We cannot spend two hours on points of order,” said Madame Speaker Rachel Madinda-Isaacs when DA Councillor Brian Fargher asked her why she was ignoring rules that govern council meetings.
It was as if chickens released in the Tlokwe imbroglio had come home to roost in the Makana council chamber and the council speaker had no intention of risking further embarrassment by following silly little council rules.
The DA had proposed a motion of no confidence in the speaker and demanded that the motion be put to a secret ballot at a special council meeting on Wednesday.
The motion was based on allegations that the speaker did not have the authority to approve a R3 million rand settlement in favour of the municipal manager. If the ruling ANC, occupying 20 out of 28 seats on the council, believed that all its members would reject the motion of no confidence against the speaker, there would be no reason to fear a vote even if it was by secret ballot.
The spectre of Tlokwe took to the skies and cast a terrifying shadow over Makana council chambers. ANC councillors had voted for an opposition candidate in a secret vote in Tlokwe (Potchefstroom) creating an extremely awkward situation for the ANC.
In June 2009, when the ANC occupied 20 of the 24 seats on the Makana council, DA Chief Whip Michael Whisson received 11 votes in a secret ballot for the mayoral seat. This meant that seven ANC councillors had voted for a DA candidate. The pivotal factor was the secret vote.
Under the circumstances it was not surprising that the local ANC would not permit a secret vote on the motion of no confidence.
It is more difficult to understand why the ruling party did not allow any kind of vote at all on the DA motion. Surely not a single ANC councillor would have supported the motion of no confidence in an open vote?
Instead, the ANC railroaded a counter-motion through the meeting and trampled all over democratic principles and numerous points of order.
The speaker correctly recused herself as chair of the session on the motion of no confidence, and this time, she followed the rules by appointing the municipal manager as acting chair. However, her choice of substitute could hardly have been worse because the motion challenged her capacity to authorise payment to the same municipal manager.
Council’s decision to follow the letter of the law when it is expedient is nothing more than political opportunism.
