The Chief Justice has given us cause for hope this morning. The judgment of the Constitutional Court is more far-reaching than many of the experts thought it would be, and for that we are grateful.

In the very first meeting of the parliamentary ad hoc committee on Security Upgrades at Nkandla, in 2014, I stood on behalf of the IFP and asked the committee to apply for a declaratory order from the Constitutional Court to pronounce on the binding nature of remedial action recommended by the Public Protector. But the predominantly-ANC committee refused.

Seeking a declaratory order is not an unusual step. This is currently being done by the Electoral Commission on the question of determining voters’ residential addresses. The failure to seek such an order from the Constitutional Court led to the inordinate delay in finalising this damaging matter, and has taken a toll on our citizens’ respect for the President, Parliament and elected public representatives.

From the start I warned the ANC that they could use their parliamentary majority to subvert the process and protect the President, unlawfully absolving him from having to comply with the Public Protector’s Report; but in the end it would not work.

Their failure to heed the IFP’s advice has led to the Constitutional Court’s judgment that it is not only the President who acted inconsistently with the Constitution, but Parliament as well. We have all been tainted by their bull-headedness. As the court confirmed today, the judiciary should have been approached.

The IFP commends the Constitutional Court on ensuring that constitutional democracy prevails. The IFP always indicated that we would participate in parliamentary processes ‘without prejudice’, and our underlying call was that the President must respect and comply with the Report of the Public Protector.

In dealing with the report tabled by the Minister of Police before an ad hoc parliamentary committee, the IFP always questioned the impartiality of the Minister’s report.

Now the chickens have come home to roost.

We note that the court has given the National Treasury 60 days in which to determine a the cost to be paid personally by the President for the construction of the visitors’ centre, chicken run, cattle kraal, swimming pool and amphitheatre at his Nkandla residence. Once the court approves the determination of the National Treasury, the President has 45 days in which to pay. He is also ordered to reprimand the ministers involved, as instructed by the Public Protector.

The President failed to respect the Constitution. He was duty-bound to comply with the binding remedial action recommended by the Public Protector’s Report, but consistently failed to do so. The court has confirmed that his conduct was illegal.

Damage has been done to our country’s reputation and to the integrity of the President. It will only be corrected once the President pays what is due to the fiscus. That, however, cannot be the end. He should then do the honourable thing and resign, failing which his own party must recall him.

Following the President’s statement to the nation on Friday night, the Secretary-General of the ANC, Gwede Mantashe, faced the obvious question from the media. Could this lead to the removal of the president in terms of section 89(1) of the Constitution? The short shrift with which Mantashe responded should have been a warning to us all that there is no hope of a two-thirds resolution. This is just not going to happen.

When we stood in this House last month and debated a motion of no confidence, the President of the IFP reminded us that the ruling party has repeatedly used its majority to shut down opposition, whether it is in the best interests of the country or not. There is no reason to believe that today will be any different.

The whole saga of Nkandla was precipitated on this bull-headed use of parliamentary majority. At the very first meeting of the ad hoc Committee on Nkandla in 2014, I advised that a declaratory order be sought from the Constitutional Court on the binding nature of the Public Protector’s remedial actions. The ANC refused, launching a two-year debacle that has ended where it should have started: in the Constitutional Court.

The IFP was deeply disappointed in the president’s response to the Constitutional Court judgment. The very least South Africa deserved was an unreserved apology, for the abuse of taxpayers’ money, for the refusal to admit that he and his family had unduly benefitted, for treating Parliament with scorn when questions were asked, and for standing by, while the reputation of Parliament, government and his own party sustained irreparable damage.

Simply apologising for “frustration and confusion” is a slap in the face of every South African.

Speaker, we participate today in support of the motion on the order paper, knowing full well that the majority will still use their power to flout the Constitution.

This is not South Africa against the ANC. This is about respecting the supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law. This is about saying to 11 Constitutional Court judges, “Thank you for applying your minds and leading the nation.” We as a National Assembly now have a responsibility to act, otherwise history will judge us harshly.

To the ANC we say “we know you are being torn apart, not only by the calls of the opposition, but from within your own ranks”.

Saying “NO” to this motion would not only be morally and ethically unconscionable but would also be a clear violation of the sacrosanct oath of office that each and every one of us hold here as Members of Parliament.

We implore you as the ruling party to do the right thing, and if you choose not to, then one can only say CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY! DM

Narend Singh MP, Chief Whip of the IFP