Cape Town - The African Transformation Movement (ATM) has submitted a new request to Speaker, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula calling for Parliament to investigate President Cyril Ramaphosa in relation to millions of dollars “concealed” in furniture on his Phala Phala farm - until it was allegedly stolen by a gang conspiring with his domestic worker in 2020.
This comes after the Speaker had declined earlier requests by the ATM and the UDM for the initiation of parliamentary action concerning reported allegations against Ramaphosa.
Mapisa-Nqakula declined the ATM’s request on the grounds that it “did not constitute nor was it accompanied by a substantive motion for a Section 89 enquiry to be initiated, as required in the Rules”.
“Further, there was no provision in the Executive Members' Ethics Act (1998) for the referral to the National Assembly of allegations of breaches by the President,” Parliamentary spokesperson, Moloto Mothapo said.
In its new request ATM president Vuyo Zungula said: “In Terms of Rule 129A of the National Assembly rules, the ATM is moving a substantiated Motion to establish a Section 89 Committee Inquiry following the overwhelming prima-facie evidence against President Ramaphosa for Constitutional violations as contemplated in section 89 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Firstly, there is prima facie evidence that the president has violated s83(b) through violating Section 96(2)(a) of the Constitution which says Members of the Cabinet and Deputy Ministers may not “undertake any other paid work’.”
The ATM added that reporting the incident to General Wally Rhoode, a member of the Presidential Protection Unit, was not in compliance with the South African Police Service Amendment Act, 2012 (Act 10 of 2012) which directs that reporting should be made to the police official in the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation in terms of Section 34(1) of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004.
“The reason there is no case number to date is because even the manner in which the purported report was made was irregular and unlawful,” Zungula said.
UDM leader Bantu Holomisa meanwhile added he was not surprised by the Speaker’s decision.
Weighing in on the matter, political analyst Professor Sipho Seepe said while the Speaker was acting within the rules of Parliament, Ramaphosa would not succeed in trying to sweep the matter under the carpet.
“The Speaker is the custodian of rules and regulations of Parliament. Her responsibility requires that matters are tabled in a manner that is consistent with the rules of Parliament. In this case, her rejection is in accordance with those rules. These are weighty matters and would require that there are no comebacks.
“That said, there is little doubt that Ramaphosa would want to have this matter swept under the carpet, but he will not succeed.
“There is now enough pressure on him to account, after he has presented himself as a paragon of virtue, which he is not and has never been. He may have fooled some people. The truth has a way of catching up with people.”
Director of the School of Public Leadership at Stellenbosch University, Professor Zwelinzima Ndevu added: “Procedurally the Speaker is correct to request a substantive motion for Parliament to consider the matter. My view would be that we should balance legal requirements with avoiding another Nkandla scandal for the legislature. Remember the Constitutional Court findings on how Parliament failed to exercise accountability when dealing with the Nkandla issue. The Speaker should create space for the issue to be discussed as a matter of public interest; however I will not go as far as setting processes for the removal of the president. That is taking the issue too far.”
Cape Times