United Democratic Movement v. Speaker of the National Assembly

After South Africa’s minister and deputy minister of finance were removed from office, South Africa’s credit rating was downgraded, and South Africans faced severe economic consequences. The United Democratic Movement (UDM) (plaintiff) and other political parties in South Africa’s National Assembly asked the speaker of the national assembly (the speaker) (defendant) to schedule voting on a motion of no confidence in the president of South Africa. If the motion passed, the president would be removed from office. Members of the national assembly alleged that they had been threatened with violence or removal from their positions if the members voted to remove the president. Therefore, UDM proposed that voting on the motion of no confidence be conducted by secret ballot so that assembly members could vote according to their consciences without improper intimidation. Supporters of the secret-ballot proposal asserted that because the president is elected by secret ballot, removal should also be accomplished by secret ballot. The supporters further asserted that the speaker had discretion to allow the vote to be conducted by secret ballot. The speaker denied UDM’s request, concluding that neither the South African Constitution nor the National Assembly’s rules provided for voting on a no-confidence motion by secret ballot. UDM then brought an action against the speaker in the South Africa Constitutional Court to determine whether the South African Constitution or National Assembly rules required, permitted, or prohibited voting by secret ballot on a motion of no confidence.