President Jacob Zuma yesterday brushed off the fifth motion of no confidence against him in Parliament.
The motion, brought by the DA after the release of former public protector Thuli Madonsela’s State of Capture report, was voted down by ANC MPs.
At the end of the motion, 214 votes were counted in Zuma’s favour, 126 against, with 58 abstentions.
Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly Lechesa Tsenoli ruled that the motion would not be voted on by secret ballot after opposition parties pleaded with him to do so.
Tsenoli said the rules did not allow for that unless agreed to prior to the debate.
Later, DA Chief Whip John Steenhuisen wasted no time sharing the names of MPs who voted against the DA’s motion of no confidence in Zuma.
In at angry Twitter post Steenhuisen said: “Well here it is RSA the list of all ANC MPs who voted in favor of Zuma over South Africa including @Derek_Hanekom what a spineless lot!” [sic]
DA leader Mmusi Maimane argued that the country could not and would not improve while Zuma is in charge, with the IFP’s Bantu Holomisa, Cope’s Mosiuoa Lekota and the EFF’s Julius Malema supporting the motion.
“If you choose Mr Zuma ahead of your country, you will live with the consequences. What we need today is best possible leadership as we head into turbulent days,” Maimane said in his plea.
“Together we can bring an end to destructive structures. There is one man that holds us back from fulfilling dreams of our people,” he said.
But Water Affairs and Sanitation Minister Nomvula Mokonyane charged that the DA was “using a black face to protect the interests of the white minority”, sending DA Chief Whip John Steenhuisen to his feet.
“Minister Mokonyane made it clear that Mr Maimane is being used by members of another race here,” he complained.
ANC Chief Whip Jackson Mthembu suggested her statement was not racist or unparliamentary but a matter of debate.
Steenhuisen replied: “If it is open season on racial profiling in this house now, I think it is a very sad day for this house.”
Madonsela found that Zuma may have breached the Executive Members Ethics Act by failing to act on indications that the State was being abused to further the business interests of the Gupta family.