/ 21 June 2002

Govt fights judge’s block on floor-crossing

The high court application by the United Democratic Movement (UDM) to block controversial floor-crossing legislation was likely to go before a full bench of the Cape High Court on Friday, Judge President John Hlophe said.

He said he was approached on Thursday night by the State’s legal team with a view to setting up a full bench of the court to consider the matter.

They will attend a meeting in his chambers at 9.30am ”with a view to hearing my final view”, he said. ”The matter will probably go to a full bench.”

Asked when this was likely to happen, he said: ”I don’t know, probably today (Friday) because the matter is extremely urgent”.

A full bench would include two or possibly three judges.

Earlier however, presidential representative Bheki Khumalo claimed that the 9.30am meeting would in fact constitute a full bench hearing.

”Judge President John Hlophe will be sitting this (Friday) morning at 9.30am in a full bench to consider the application of the government,” he said.

The State’s legal team however said the meeting in Hlophe’s office was ”just a meeting”.

Cape High Court Judge Hennie Nel ruled late on Thursday night that the floor-crossing legislation should be put on hold until a full bench of the court had heard the matter.

The legislation was to have come into effect at midnight on Thursday. Nel said this should be dealt with as a matter of urgency and ruled that the matter of costs would have to stand over.

The decision came after senior counsel for the United Democratic Movement (UDM) told the Nel the UDM believed the court should grant an interim interdict preventing the crossing of the floor legislation coming into effect at midnight.

Advocate Jan Heunis, SC, told Nel the UDM’s action could not have been brought earlier. He said the matter was urgent because the first 15-day window period for MPs, MPLs and municipal councillors to change party allegiance without losing their seats was to have commenced at midnight.

Heunis submitted that suspending the implementation of the legislation would not prejudice anyone. The country expected party representation to remain as the voters had decided in the last general election.

Smaller parties could disappear if the defection legislation was effected and the accountability imposed by proportional representation under the Constitution was in conflict with legislation which would allow ”unrestricted floor-crossing”, Heunis said.

Advocate Jeremy Gauntlett, SC, argued for the State that there had been a previous judgement which showed that a high court did not have jurisdiction to make an interim order on a constitutional matter. – Sapa