Eight days in september the removal of thabo mbeki pdf
![eight days in september the removal of thabo mbeki pdf eight days in september the removal of thabo mbeki pdf](https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/311099118_Unpacking_the_Tension_Between_the_African_Union_and_the_ICC_The_Way_Forward/links/5ff083c945851553a011b76e/largepreview.png)
He could have insisted that as it was the National Assembly that had appointed him, he should go back to the National Assembly to resign.
![eight days in september the removal of thabo mbeki pdf eight days in september the removal of thabo mbeki pdf](https://i.pinimg.com/474x/55/78/fc/5578fcadb502d4439fe673d0818055a3--eight-days--days.jpg)
![eight days in september the removal of thabo mbeki pdf eight days in september the removal of thabo mbeki pdf](https://media.loot.co.za/static/gallery/previews/k/b/w/kbwz-1831-g050/preview.kbwz-1831-g050.2.back.1770102213.jpg)
Yet in so doing he did the country a severe disservice. Love him or loathe him, Mbeki seems never to have been particularly concerned about material issues.īut – as indicated by the detailed account of the matter by Frank Chikane, director-general in the presidency under Mbeki – it seems that the former president chose not to contest the authority of the party because he could not bear to bring upon himself the charge of disloyalty to the party, however harsh he considered its decision. So are we to assume that it was his concern about rands and cents which simply moved Mbeki to resign as president rather than insisting that the party take the matter to parliament? That seems highly unlikely. It also lays down that anyone removed from the office of president on any of these grounds may not receive any benefits of that office (by which is meant, presumably, the denial to that person of his or her presidential pension). It may only do this on one or more of three grounds: a serious violation of the constitution or the law serious misconduct and/or inability to perform the functions of office. When it comes to the removal of a president, the constitution lays down that such an action requires the National Assembly to pass a resolution to that effect by a two thirds majority. This procedure is as it should be – the majority party chooses, but has to ratify its decision by referring the appointment to the National Assembly. The exception was when Kgalema Motlanthe succeeded Mbeki for a short period after his resignation in 2008, Zuma having opted to wait to fill the post until after the 2009 election. In practice, this has meant that since 1994 the ANC, as the majority party, has had its leader elected as president following each general election. In terms of the country’s constitution, the president of the country is elected by the National Assembly from among its members.
![eight days in september the removal of thabo mbeki pdf eight days in september the removal of thabo mbeki pdf](https://www.iai.it/sites/default/files/styles/dettaglio_pubblicazione/public/2020_9782930769462.jpg)
He placed the authority of the party before that of parliament, which under the country’s constitution, is the only body that can remove a South African president from office. Yet in so doing, as a “loyal and disciplined member of the ANC”, he undermined the legitimacy of the constitution. Yes, he went with dignity, for which he needs to be commended. Like a lamb to the slaughter, he meekly did what he was told. With the Zuma faction in firm control of the ANC’s machinery, the ruling party instructed Mbeki to stand down as the country’s president just eight days after Nicholson’s judgement. The consequences of Nicholson’s ruling were felt immediately. Nicholson’s ruling echoed the view of Zuma’s supporters that the reinstatement of the charges was politically motivated, and had been done at Mbeki’s behest. The NPA’s decision was taken after Zuma ousted Mbeki in a bitter contest for the leadership of the ANC at a party conference in Polokwane almost a year earlier. On that day, Judge Chris Nicholson ruled in the High Court that there had been executive interference in the independence of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) when it reinstated charges against Jacob Zuma in a case involving alleged corruption 10 years earlier. It is worth recalling the events of 12 September 2008. And the chickens are coming home to roost. By choosing not to fight the ANC over his recall, he missed a major opportunity to assert the primacy of South Africa’s constitution. The consequences of the decisions he took on being ousted by his party, the African National Congress (ANC), as State President in 2008 set a precedent and are still being felt today. But Mbeki’s intervention in favour of constitutional propriety is actually eight years too late. This is after Zuma failed to honour the recommendations of the Public Protector’s report on the scandalous expenditure on his homestead in Nkandla. In a recent speech, former South African President Thabo Mbeki decried the failure of parliament to act against President Jacob Zuma after the Constitutional Court had declared him in breach of the constitution.