Political party representatives, either their leaders or Chief Whips, made brief statements as they were leaving the parliamentary meeting in the Speaker’s boardroom along one of the side corridors. There was consensus that the meeting had gone well and that issues – from possible steps against President Jacob Zuma for breaking his constitutional duty to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution, to the role of Speaker Baleka Mbete, who is also the ANC national chairwoman – had been ventilated.

One unifying golden thread appears to be concern that the dignity and standing of the national legislature had been eroded. However, actual decisions or concrete steps with set time frames proved elusive.

And so the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) could claim their request for disciplinary proceedings against President Jacob Zuma for his failures in the Nkandla debacle was receiving consideration.

The Democratic Alliance (DA) said “baby steps” were taken, but Parliament really needed to apologise for its role in the Nkandla debacle and fundamentally change in how it does its job.

The IFP said it was positive there would be a review of whether the president’s statements related to the Nkandla saga in the House had misled Parliament.

The National Freedom Party (NFP) said there was “some sense of urgency” to deal with matters, while the African Independent Congress said there was direction. The Freedom Front Plus said it was able to raise its concerns about misleading presidential statements and the lack of a neutral Speaker.

Cope changed its mind about withdrawing from parliamentary activity, leaving the meeting “quite happy” that issues had been raised. Only the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) indicated feeling let down.

The United Democratic Movement (UDM) was not part of the meeting – Mbete had not responded to its call for disciplinary action against Zuma until after 17:00 the night before, and by that time its MPs had other engagements. The ANC declined to speak until after the Speaker had had her say, as it was her meeting after all. Contacted later, the ANC said everything needed to be done to ensure parliamentary rules were informed by the Constitutional Court judgment and spoke to enhancing Parliament’s oversight role.

In her response Mbete said parliamentary rules were important considerations even as political parties presented other issues.

“We will continue to look at this and apply our minds,” she said surrounded by a phalanx of senior parliamentary officials, office staff and bodyguards outside the public gallery entrance to the National Assembly some way from the meeting venue. “It (the meeting) was not exhaustive… We need to continue talking and engaging and unpacking the questions raised by the judgment.”

So the upshot was there would be further processes, involving the rules committee and the constitutional review committee. The rules committee has failed to finalise its rules review over the past four years. The constitutional review committee is one of the least active committees, although four years ago it courted controversy in entertaining a call from traditional leaders to remove homosexuality from the constitutional equality provisions.

Promised future engagements and further processes are, of course, one way of saying: “We are dealing with matters; they are receiving attention”, without actually working towards a goal or resolution. And everything is dressed in parliamentary procedure and protocol. It is a political strategy to take the wind out of the sails of critics of Parliament – and of the opposition parties, who had a show of unity in the impeachment debate days after the 31 March Constitutional Court judgment.

Although the DA motion to remove President Jacob Zuma from office was defeated by the ANC closing its numerically dominant ranks in the House, it was not going to be the final chapter. Hence the proposals from the EFF and UDM for disciplinary proceedings against Zuma, and the DA and IFP requests for a formal investigation into whether his statements in the House misled Parliament.

However, already it is pointed out that while the president is bound by parliamentary rules when he is in the House, Zuma is not an MP – and thus not subject to the parliamentary code of conduct. According to the Constitution, the president immediately resigns as MP after being elected by the National Assembly.

Thus such disciplinary action against Zuma is highly unlikely. On the same argument the Freedom Front Plus request to the parliamentary joint ethics committee is unlikely to succeed.

The jury is still out on action over whether the president misled Parliament in his statements on the R215-million taxpayer-funded security upgrades at his Nkandla rural homestead. It may just be the least painful option for the ANC, which has the numbers at Parliament. But given the drive to unite behind Zuma, and to actively discourage public expressions of dissatisfaction, again, it’s an unlikely development.

To date Gauteng, where two branches publicly called for the president to resign, stands isolated in its call for Zuma to think deeply and do the right thing as the ANC in six provinces have thrown their weight behind him even if the levels of enthusiasm may vary. The Western and Northern Cape, the two smallest ANC provinces, have yet to make pronouncements.

These responses came after an extended ANC national working committee (NWC) four days after the judgment accepted Zuma’s apology for the confusion and frustration caused. It followed the ANC top six officials’ meeting after which Zuma “apologised” in his address to the nation. “I never knowingly or deliberately set out to violate the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the Republic,” he said on April Fools’ Day.

Wednesday’s meeting in Parliament over the Constitutional Court judgment came 10 days after Mbete and National Council of Provinces (NCOP) chairperson Thandi Modise publicly responded to it by focusing on the court upholding Parliament’s right to determine its own processes. Little, if anything, was said about the damning finding that the National Assembly had effectively taken “the law into one’s own hands” by passing a resolution to replace the public protector’s findings and remedial action with one of its own to absolve Zuma from any repayments.

That resolution, passed in late 2015, was framed around the police minister’s report which found no repayments were due as even the swimming pool, cattle kraal, chicken run, amphitheatre and visitors’ centre were security features. In August 2014 Zuma had instructed his police minister to determine whether repayments were due, about five months after the public protector’s report “Secure in Comfort” said the president must repay a reasonable percentage of the costs of non-security benefits as determined by the National Treasury and SAPS.

“The National Assembly was duty bound to hold the president accountable by facilitating and ensuring compliance with the decision of the Public Protector,” said the Constitutional Court – unless Parliament took the report on review to court. It did not.

What Parliament now does in real terms to restore its standing as a key sphere of state upholding its constitutional obligations, or whether it’ll all be a case of death by process, remains to be seen. DM

Photo: Speaker of parliament Baleka Mbete reacts during a debate in parliament Cape Town, South Africa, 05 April 2016. EPA/NIC BOTHMA