Straight from its victory in the Constitutional Court on Friday, the EFF has written to parliamentary speaker Thoko Didiza asking her to immediately initiate the process to establish an impeachment committee that gives effect to the top court’s judgment.
“The Constitutional Court specifically rules that the National Assembly must refer the section 89 independent panel report to an impeachment committee. We write to you to immediately initiate the process to constitute the impeachment committee to give effect to the judgment of the court,” EFF chief whip Nothando Nolutshungu said in the letter to the speaker.
“Kindly revert to us with clear timelines in which you will give effect to this judgment of the apex court in SA.”
“The president [Cyril Ramaphosa] has got to come, has got to sit there. He can’t send any minister. And then, among other things, we’re going to demand that the impeachment committee must go to Phala Phala,” EFF president Julius Malema said.
“Remember, the [section 89] panel was limited. The impeachment process will not be limited. It can go for many years even trying to come up with a clear report that demonstrates if there was wrongdoing or there was no wrongdoing. Remember, impeachment is not a motion of no confidence. It has dire consequences for the president.”
The Constitutional Court set aside the National Assembly’s vote not to adopt an independent panel report that found President Cyril Ramaphosa had a case to answer regarding a robbery at his Phala Phala game farm.
The ruling, handed down by chief justice Mandisa Maya on Friday, is set to be an acid stress test for the government of national unity (GNU) as parties such as the DA, PA, IFP and other smaller parties in the coalition government would have to decide whether to protect the president.
Opposition parties the EFF, MK and ATM said speaker Didiza should immediately set up the impeachment committee as instructed by the top court.
The ANC no longer holds a majority in parliament after the 2024 national elections, which fundamentally changes the arithmetic of any vote on the committee’s findings.
The court found the parliamentary vote, which protected the president from facing an impeachment committee, was invalid. It found that a parliamentary rule that the National Assembly had relied on to make the vote was inconsistent with the constitution.
The court had three judgments on the case.
This judgment also draws a clear line between the DA and the ANC. For too long, the ANC has presided over a political culture in which accountability is delayed, diluted or avoided when it becomes inconvenient
— DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis
The DA, the second largest party in parliament and a member of the GNU, welcomed the court decision, saying its position would be guided by the evidence placed before the committee.
“We will be guided by the facts, by the evidence placed before the committee, and by our constitutional duty,” DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis said shortly after the judgment.
“We will not prejudge the outcome. Nor will we allow any person, no matter how high their office, to be placed above accountability. South Africa’s democracy rests on the simple principle that public office is a public trust.”
Hill-Lewis added: “This judgment also draws a clear line between the DA and the ANC. For too long, the ANC has presided over a political culture in which accountability is delayed, diluted or avoided when it becomes inconvenient.”
Another opposition party, ActionSA, called the ruling a “victory for accountabilty”.
“ActionSA is ready to participate in the processes that unfold and to provide leadership from the opposition benches as we have on the Phala Phala matter for some time,” the party said in a statement.
The EFF and the ATM went to the top court in 2024 seeking an order declaring that the National Assembly’s decision not to adopt the panel’s report and refer it to an impeachment committee was irrational.
The parties argued parliament failed in its mandate to hold the executive accountable.
The panel, chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, found Ramaphosa may have committed a serious violation of the law, which requires any person who holds a position of authority to report the theft of R100,000 or more to the police.
About $580,000 in cash is understood to have been stolen from the farm premises.
The president reported the matter to Gen Wally Rhoode, a member of the Presidential Protection Unit, but did not report it directly to the police, saying he did not want to cause panic.
The case before the court was not a ruling on the scandal itself but a legal challenge to whether parliament had acted correctly in rejecting the report after it was voted down.
The constitution stipulates the National Assembly may remove a president from office only on the grounds of:
- a serious violation of the constitution or the law;
- serious misconduct; or
- their inability to perform the functions of office.
Anyone who has been removed from the office of president may not receive any further benefits of that office.
Business Day
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.