Court case outcome - media statement issued by UDM President (15 September 2005)

The UDM has taken note of the outcome of the court case against Mr Diko and others. We completely disagree with its implications. We are particularly aggrieved by the decision to allow these people to cross the floor despite the fact that we have applied for leave to appeal. The UDM feels that this decision prejudices the party and pre-empts the outcome of our appeal before it has even been heard. The issues in this case are far too complex to simply pre-empt our appeal in this fashion. The case was heard last week, judgement was delivered yesterday, and still our legal team were not provided with a written judgement in preparation for today’s hearing. Is this fair judicial procedure? We believe that the Judge President of the Western Cape needs to look into this administrative failure of the court. What this case, as well as several others over the past month, implies is that political parties can no longer discipline their public representatives, irrespective of how badly they behave. In our case, Mr Diko and his colleagues abused the court in order to avoid an internal disciplinary process, and whilst the matter was sub judice unleashed a torrent of gratuitous, malicious and deceitful media commentary to bring the UDM and its leadership into disrepute. The ruling of the court in effect denies political parties any action against wayward public representatives. This will make a mockery of party discipline and further destabilise parties, and by extension multi-party democracy. We believe that this court case has highlighted once more how contradictory and untenable floor-crossing is within our current electoral system. Public representatives are accountable to the electorate through their parties, but that accountability is now being torn to shreds. In essence the system as it currently stands is encouraging loose cannons and fortune-seekers instead of public representatives driven by policy and their commitment to the voters. The UDM is considering an appeal to this judgement, in the hope that in a higher court sanity might prevail and the accountability of public representatives can be restored.

Back to 2005 media statement archive