## Facts

- Following a cabinet reshuffle and economic fallout, opposition parties sought to bring a constitutional motion of no confidence in the President under section 102 of the Constitution.
- The United Democratic Movement (UDM) requested that the Speaker arrange for the no-confidence vote to be conducted by secret ballot.
- UDM asserted there were threats and intimidation that could prevent members from voting according to conscience if the vote were open.
- The Speaker refused, reasoning that neither the Constitution nor National Assembly Rules authorized a secret ballot for a no-confidence motion and relying on prior High Court authority.
- UDM brought proceedings in the Constitutional Court seeking (i) a declaration that the Constitution or Rules require/permit a secret ballot, (ii) review and setting aside of the Speaker’s refusal, and (iii) an order directing a secret ballot for the scheduled motion.
- The Constitutional Court granted direct access and decided the matter on the merits.

## Issues

1. What constitutional role does a section 102 motion of no confidence serve in ensuring executive accountability?
2. Whether the Constitution and National Assembly Rules empower the Speaker to prescribe a secret ballot for a no-confidence motion, and whether a secret ballot is required, permitted, or prohibited.
3. How the Speaker must exercise any discretion on voting procedure consistently with constitutional values and separation of powers, and whether the refusal was legally valid.

## Decision

- The Court held unanimously that the Speaker has constitutional power to prescribe that a motion of no confidence be voted on by secret ballot.
- The Court held the Constitution neither requires nor forbids a secret ballot for no-confidence motions; the choice depends on circumstances.
- The Court set aside the Speaker’s refusal because it was based on an error of law (treating herself as lacking any power to order a secret ballot).
- The Court remitted the matter to the Speaker to reconsider the request in light of the judgment, and declined to order that the particular impending vote be by secret ballot.

## Legal Principles

- A motion of no confidence is a core accountability mechanism that must be capable of practical effectiveness, including enabling members to perform oversight functions without improper constraint.
- Constitutional silence on a voting method does not imply prohibition; where the Constitution does not prescribe procedure, parliamentary authority under provisions governing internal arrangements may allow determination of voting method.
- The Speaker holds discretionary authority, grounded in constitutional and rules-based powers over Assembly procedure, to prescribe a secret ballot where appropriate.
- The discretion must be exercised lawfully and context-sensitively, considering whether the procedure enables members to vote according to conscience and the public interest, including risks of intimidation or undue influence.
- Courts may review parliamentary procedural decisions for legality (including material errors of law) while avoiding substitution of their preferred procedural choice absent justification.

## Conclusion

The Court confirmed that the Speaker may authorize a secret ballot for a presidential no-confidence vote and that the Constitution does not mandate a single voting method; because the Speaker wrongly treated herself as lacking that authority, her refusal was invalid and the matter was sent back for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.


United Democratic Movement v. Speaker of the Nat’l Assembly, CCT 89/17 (S. Afr. Const. Ct. 2017)