President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal is still hanging in the balance after the Constitutional Court in Braamfontein reserved judgment on the EFF and African Transformation’s (ATM) application to set aside Parliament’s decision not to pursue an impeachment inquiry into Ramaphosa.
The two parties argued at the apex court yesterday that Parliament acted unlawfully and irrationally when it voted not to probe the scandal further.
The EFF was seeking accountability for his involvement in the 2020 break-in at his Phala Phala game farm while the ATM argued that the National Assembly failed in its constitutional duty to hold the Executive accountable.
The lid blew off the scandal after a February 2020 break-in at Ramaphosa’s Limpopo game farm, which has sparked allegations of corruption and misconduct against the president.
Ramaphosa has since denied any wrongdoing, saying the money that was stolen from his property was from an auction as he was a game farmer.
Almost two years ago, Parliament rejected a motion to remove Ramaphosa from office, through impeachment in December 2022, despite several investigations into the matter, including those conducted by the Reserve Bank and the Public Protector.
Retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo had concluded that Ramaphosa may have broken the Constitution and had a case to answer for, however, was protected by the then-governing ANC through a vote in Parliament, closing the chapter into the matter.
However, the EFF’s legal counsel advocate Kameel Premhid argued for a court ruling that would automatically refer any prima facie findings to the Impeachment Committee for a comprehensive investigation.
Premhid further contended that the Phala Phala money was not declared to the South African Revenue Service (SARS) and that Ramaphosa should be held accountable for the circumstances surrounding the February 2020 break-in.
The ATM’s advocate, Anton Katz, questioned why there had still not been an explanation for the thousands of US dollars stuffed in a sofa on the president’s farm, that’s now become the subject of a burglary trial.
The court questioned the EFF’s delayed challenge to the matter, considering that the Reserve Bank and the Public Protector had already conducted investigations into the scandal.
Ramaphosa’s lawyer, advocate Geoff Budlender, argued before the court that owing to the powers accorded to Parliament under the Constitution, the impeachment of a president had a political dimension.
“The question is not whether the president acted correctly in all respects, it’s if he got it wrong in some respects, this is shown to have been deliberate and in bad faith.”
Budlender also took it to the EFF, blaming the party for acting on the matter “very late”, arguing that Ramaphosa was long called to account for Phala Phala.
“The EFF is wrong to say Ramaphosa has not been held accountable,” he said.
He further mentioned that the president’s farming venture has never been a secret, saying perhaps the panel should have acted on whether Ramaphosa was open about that or not.
Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi standing in for the ANC, slammed the EFF’s claims that ANC MPs were somehow threatened to side with Ramaphosa. “There’s no evidence,” he said.
Ngcukaitobi claimed ANC members acted as they should have as MPs.
He also added that the National Assembly’s decision was rational.
The ANC, Speaker, and Ramaphosa are all defending Parliament’s decision to cut off the investigation to the president’s impeachment.
Advocate Andrew Breitenbach, speaking on behalf of the Speaker and Parliament, argued that the House has a legal duty to decide how best to hold the executive branch responsible.
Breitenbach maintained that the National Assembly’s decision was rational and that any abuse of the impeachment procedure should be handled through judicial challenge.
According to legal experts, the outcome of the case will have significant implications for Ramaphosa’s presidency and the country’s governance.
Speaking on national television last night after judgment was reserved, legal expert Mpumelelo Zikalala said it was highly unlikely that Ramaphosa would be held fully accountable for the Phala Phala saga, especially after a new government had been elected.
“The difficulty of saying it must go back to parliament is a reality because it’s a completely new administration… so the people who took the decision in the first place are no longer there.
“But what the court can do is to say the types of rules that you have as Parliament don’t make it easy for the president to be impeached or for a simple inquiry to take place.
”They will probably find the rules to be unconstitutional and recommend that new rules be created to avoid a similar situation like that of the president and the Phala Phala matter,” he said. | Additional reporting by Kamogelo Moichela
The Star