[1]  In this application, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM) challenge the constitutional validity of rule 129I of the Ninth Edition of the Rules of the National Assembly (NA Rules) and the National Assembly’s vote on 13 December 2022 (NA vote) to not refer the Independent Panel’s (Panel) Report[1] to the Impeachment Committee.  There are three judgments.

[2]  The first judgment is written by Maya CJ, with Madlanga ADCJ, Rogers J and Theron J concurring.  It finds that this Court enjoys exclusive jurisdiction over the challenge to the validity of rule 129I as well as the related challenge to the validity of the NA vote.  It also determines that the challenges are not moot and that the delay in bringing the challenge to the NA vote can be overlooked.

[3]  The first judgment holds that rule 129I constitutes a failure by the National Assembly to fulfil its constitutional obligations under section 89(1) of the Constitution.  It consequently invalidates and sets aside rule 129I as inconsistent with the Constitution.  Further, the first judgment holds that the NA vote amounts to a failure by the National Assembly to fulfil its constitutional obligations.  On this basis, the first judgment would invalidate and set aside the NA vote as inconsistent with the Constitution.

[4]  The second judgment is written by Kollapen J, with Mathopo J, Seegobin AJ and Tshiqi J concurring.  It agrees with the first judgment, albeit for different reasons, that this Court’s exclusive jurisdiction is engaged in respect of the challenge to the validity of rule 129I.  However, it finds that the rule is constitutional.  It further concludes that this Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the NA vote and that direct access should not be granted in respect of this challenge.

[5]  The third judgment is written by Majiedt J, with Mhlantla J and Tolmay AJ concurring.  That judgment agrees with the first judgment that this Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the challenge to the validity of rule 129I.  It further finds that the rule is unconstitutional, but for the reasons it states.  Consequently, it concludes that the NA vote taken under rule 129I is also invalid and that the Report should be referred to the Impeachment Committee to be established in terms of the NA Rules.  In all other respects, the third judgment agrees with the reasoning and conclusion of the second judgment.