With rumours swirling fast and loose regarding the President’s imminent departure from the office, it is important to note that the President can leave the office through being “recalled”, being impeached, or having a motion of no confidence passed. Each of the different processes will achieve different results. Here is a primer on what should follow, depending on how the President leaves the office.

“Recalled”
In terms of the governing party’s political parlance, being “recalled” refers to the governing party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) resolving that the President step down from the position. Should the President acquiesce to the resolution, then this will be followed by the President’s resignation. A resignation in terms of South Africa’s Constitution, counts as a “vacancy in the office of the President”. As such, the Deputy President occupies the office of the President, assuming all the responsibilities, powers and functions of the office. The Constitution further provides that a person who fills the vacancy in the office of the President merely completes the term of office of the recently deposed President, without this regarded as a term. This leaves any such interim President free to hold the office for two more terms, if so elected.

The South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) has begun this year in much the same way it ended the last – in the press for questionable reasons. Mid-January, reports emerged that Chris Maroleng, former MTN executive for group corporate affairs, was tipped to take up the position of Chief Operations Officer (COO) at the public broadcaster. The position was formerly held by the highly controversial and embattled Hlaudi Motsoeneng and in the interim, by Bessie Tugwana. The reports resulted in statements by the Communications Minister, Mmamoloko Kubayi-Ngubane, indicating that neither she nor her office were consulted prior to the alleged appointment. Her grievance with the appointment was that she was not consulted prior, and this omission therefore, invalidates Maroleng’s appointment.

The Constitutional Court (the Court) delivered a crucial judgment in December 2017 on the constitutional right to receive education in the language of one’s choice when it dismissed AfriForum’s leave to appeal in the case between the University of the Free State v AfriForum and Another (SCA judgment).

The SCA judgment upheld the University of the Free State’s decision to replace the dual Afrikaans-English language policy with English as the primary medium of instruction (UFS decision). Importantly, the UFS’s decision was mainly taken due to racial friction caused by a perception that the Afrikaans students (majority of whom were white) were perceived to receive better education, as the Afrikaans classes were smaller.

This raises the question whether the Court’s approach delivered an “objective and justifiable denial to the right”?

The President has announced, albeit with the persuasion of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria High Court, (the Court) the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry (the Commission) regarding complaints and allegations raised in the erstwhile Public Protector’s State of Capture Report. This, bizarrely, despite having lodged an appeal against the Court’s order which found the State of Capture Report binding. Presumably the legal doctrine that no person can be allowed to take up two positions inconsistent with one another applies – and since he has announced the Commission before the appeal has been heard, it stands to reason that the appeal falls away. While political analysts may ponder as to the motivation behind the President’s seemingly contradictory legal positions on the matter, it is apparent however, that the Commission will go ahead.