The ANC's legal counsel has argued before the full bench of the Johannesburg high court that the governing party had a right to protect its image in the eyes of the public from its criminally implicated members, including suspended secretary-general Ace Magashule.
This comes as Magashule is waging a legal battle against the party and President Cyril Ramaphosa in a bid to have his suspension overturned.
Magashule was slapped with a suspension by the party last month after refusing to leave his post in line with the “step aside” rule, as he argued that the rule was unconstitutional and designed to politically target him by Ramaphosa’s faction.
Advocate Wim Trengove SC, for the ANC, reiterated that the “step aside” rule and the ANC’s section 25.70 which enabled suspension of criminally charged members were not a punitive power but that which was aimed at protecting the party from being tainted with the alleged criminality of its members.
“It is a power designed to protect the best interests of the organisation," Trengove said. "The rationale for it is obvious. No organisation with any self-respect wants somebody indicted on a serious crime to be its public face, to be seen in its leadership. Which party with any credibility can tell the electorate that it is fighting the scourge of corruption while one of its senior leaders stands indicted on very serious charges of corruption?”
Magashule is facing a raft of charges, including fraud, corruption and money laundering relating to the R255m controversial tender for the removal of asbestos roofs from houses in the Free State when he was premier.
Trengove pointed out that while Magashule had argued that the constitution upheld rights for people to join political parties of their choice and to enjoy enjoined rights of participation, it did not prescribe how members of political parties should exercise their right to participate in its political activities.
“For a good reason, this is left to political parties themselves to regulate. These activities are internal matters of each political party and therefore it is these parties that are best placed to determine how members will participate in internal activities. The constitutions of political parties are the instruments which facilitate and regulate participation by members,” he said.
Magashule’s lawyer, advocate Dali Mpofu SC, had argued on Thursday that the rule violated Magashule's right to presumption of innocence, but Trengove said this right was only aimed at governing the manner in which criminal prosecutions were conducted, which was not the case with the “step aside” rule.
Magashule and his legal representative have argued before the court that the ANC national executive committee (NEC) unlawfully narrowed down its conference resolution on dealing with corruption to only focus on those formally charged, while the resolution had also included those accused of criminality.
Trengove said the NEC had given full effect to the resolution as its “step aside” guidelines had demarcated envisaged action both for those accused, who were prescribed to explain themselves before the party’s integrity commission, as well as those who were already facing charges before the courts.
He said the party’s conference resolution had been broad and “in principle” and that it was the NEC that had the power to make it implementable.
Trengove said Magashule had not claimed that the NEC had gone beyond the scope of the resolution in creating the guidelines but that it did not go far enough, which he said could not be the basis of invalidating them.
The hearing continues.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.