Newsroom > Motion of no confidence

UDM reaction to outcome of MONC in Mr Zuma

UDM reaction to outcome of MONC in Mr Zuma

The United Democratic Movement (UDM) accepts the result of today’s vote on the motion of no-confidence in Mr Zuma. We are however perturbed by the choice of the African National Congress (ANC) Members of the National Assembly who sided with an irreparably corrupt President. The people of South Africa have been shown the middle-finger for the eight time. We however welcome and are happy with the almost thirty ANC Members who voted against thievery and Mr Zuma. The battle to save South Africa is not over though. The UDM will join the Economic Freedom Fighters’ court proceedings for Mr Zuma’s impeachment. We shall also intensify our campaigns on the streets, in Parliament, and everywhere, for as long as Mr Zuma remains in office. South Africans can now see the difference between those who stand for the truth and those who stand for the looting of their Country’s resources meant to alleviate poverty and erase unemployment. The ANC regards our people as mere fodder, used to vote it into power every five years, but in return its leaders continue to steal from them. Statement issued by Mr Bantu Holomisa,MP and UDM President

Inappropriateness of Ms B Mbete presiding over the debate on the motion of no confidence in President Zuma

Inappropriateness of Ms B Mbete presiding over the debate on the motion of no confidence in President Zuma

Honourable Ms Baleka Mbete, MP Speaker of the National Assembly PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 Dear Madam Speaker Inappropriateness of your presiding over the debate on the motion of no confidence in President Zuma The above matter has reference. I write on behalf of the leaders of the African Christian Democratic Party, African People’s Convention, Congress of the People, Democratic Alliance, Economic Freedom Fighters, Inkatha Freedom Party and the United Democratic Movement. We met on 13 July, this instant, and resolved that it would not be proper for you, as Speaker of the National Assembly, to preside over the debate on the vote of no-confidence in President Zuma. We base our argument on the following grounds: You are on record instructing African National Congress (ANC) Members of Parliament in the National Assembly to vote in favour of their President; In the event of the success of the motion, you are enjoined by the Constitution to act as President; and You are also in the running for ANC President and by extension the President of the Country. Making matters worse is your recent attack on the judiciary. You have said that certain judges are biased against your party. Your action undermines your duty to act as liaison between Parliament, as an institution, and the other arms of State. It means that you still fail to separate your role as the head of the National Assembly and that of ANC Chairperson. All of the aforementioned demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are patently biased and therefore conflicted and compromised. We also wish to remind you of the wise advice given by the Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, in the 22 June Constitutional Court’s judgement, He said the following about the power of those in public office: “They are therefore not to be used for the advancement of personal or sectarian interests. Amandla awethu, mannda ndiashu, maatla ke a rona or matimba ya hina (power belongs to us) and mayibuye iAfrika (restore Africa and its wealth) are much more than mere excitement-generating slogans.” We hope that you will to do the right thing in the interest of the Nation and recuse yourself from presiding over this debate. Yours sincerely Mr Bantu Holomisa, MP UDM President

UDM Chief Whip asks the NA Speaker for urgent debate on President Zuma motion of no confidence

UDM Chief Whip asks the NA Speaker for urgent debate on President Zuma motion of no confidence

Dear Madam Speaker MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC IN TERMS OF SECTION 102 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH AFRICA AND SECTION 129 OF THE RULES OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY With his unexplained, and seemingly unilateral, cabinet reshuffle the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr JG Zuma, has effectively relegated the South African economy to junk status. Whether he considered the consequences his decision seems doubtful. South Africans will soon feel the pinch – but ultimately the poorest of the poor will be hardest hit when food, transport and other necessities become unaffordable. The United Democratic Movement adds its voice to that of our colleagues in other parties, and I herewith lodge a motion of no confidence in the President in terms of Section 102 of the Republic’s Constitution, as well as Section 129 of the rules of the National Assembly. Yours sincerely Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP UDM Chief Whip

Motion of no confidence in the Speaker of the National Assembly: Baleka Mbete

Motion of no confidence in the Speaker of the National Assembly: Baleka Mbete

by Bantu Holomisa in the National Assembly Honourable Deputy-Chairperson Honourable Deputy President Honourable Ministers and Deputy-Ministers Honourable Members The United Democratic Movement (UDM) endorses the motion of no confidence in the current Speaker, Baleka Mbete, on grounds already presented in this house. Before she was elected into office, the Speaker is on record distorting and attacking outcomes of the Public Protector’s investigations on Nkandla. This distortion and attack has since been sustained by the organisation she presides over as its National Chairperson. In this regard, her objectivity on the work of the parliamentary committee considering this matter is highly questionable and may compromise the independence of this house. Irrespective of the outcome of this process, today, surely we can all agree that there is a great and urgent need to evaluate whether parliament has been discharging its mandate over the last 20 years in accordance with the principles of inclusive participatory democracy. Where so required, make such necessary changes to give effect to a democratically managed people’s parliament. Accordingly, the UDM will write to the Ethics Committee of this house to cause the current speaker to explain her alleged involvement and role in the Goldfields saga. In the same vein, we will seek to get clarity on whether the current speaker is remunerated in accordance with the package she got when she resigned as the Deputy President of the Republic or whether in addition to the package granted, she further enjoys speaker’s package.   I thank you