South African television screens are about to get even more riveting. The parliamentary impeachment committee set to investigate the Phala Phala saga promises to be more entertaining than the Madlanga commission − provided, of course, that President Cyril Ramaphosa does not succeed in interdicting the proceedings while he pursues his judicial review of the Section 89 panel report.
This week, parliament resolved to establish a 31‑member committee tasked with probing whether Ramaphosa should be impeached. The composition reflects the political balance of the National Assembly: the ANC will field nine members, the DA five, the MK Party three, and the EFF two, while smaller parties will each send one representative.
The Constitutional Court’s recent judgment sent a clear and powerful message about the role of parliament and the importance of ensuring that its rules are not subverted at the altar of political convenience. Political parties must therefore treat this process with the seriousness it deserves by deploying their most capable MPs to the committee.
This matter is far too important to be reduced to the circus that characterised the parliamentary ad hoc committee probing former KZN police commissioner Lt-Gen Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi’s allegations that a cartel has captured our criminal justice system and politicians.
While I cannot dictate to political parties, the public would be better served if certain MPs who previously sat on the Soviet Lekganyane‑chaired committee were left out. That committee’s proceedings were, at times, deeply embarrassing.
MPs seemed more interested in competing for who could ask the most ridiculous questions, shout the loudest at witnesses, or defend their comrades and party line most aggressively. Whatever the outcome, the MPs failed to do justice to the committee’s objective. The public did not get their money’s worth.
This time, political parties must send legislators genuinely committed to uncovering the truth, not those intent on displaying political gimmicks. Parties would also be wise to avoid nominating individuals with personal grudges against the president.
Some opposition benches harbour figures who were themselves impeached from previous positions. Allowing such individuals to participate risks turning the process into a platform for settling old scores. The public has no interest in how Ramaphosa may or may not have mistreated certain individuals now sitting in opposition. What matters is whether the president broke the law in the events before and after foreign currency was stolen from his farm.
The committee must also interrogate the panel’s suggestion that Ramaphosa may have violated his oath of office when he engaged in the trade of wild animals and whether that business was properly declared. The impeachment process is a major test for parliament as an institution mandated to hold the executive accountable. It is also an opportunity for parliament to redeem itself following last week’s Constitutional Court reprimand.
At the same time, this moment presents Ramaphosa with a chance to clear his name. He has already announced his intention to take the panel report on judicial review. Many believe the report will not withstand legal scrutiny. Supporters of the president argue that the panel relied on hearsay and ventured beyond its scope in making certain pronouncements.
There is ongoing debate about whether Ramaphosa’s application will delay the impeachment process and whether he will need to approach the courts to interdict parliament from proceeding while he challenges the report.
Parliament must tread carefully in light of the Constitutional Court’s warning. The institution will need sound legal advice on whether it can proceed with impeachment based on a report under judicial challenge. Should the court set aside the panel’s findings, the entire impeachment process could be exposed to legal challenges.
Ramaphosa himself is in a tight corner. He has declared his intention to fight tooth and nail to protect his legacy. He has every right to pursue the legal route to challenge the panel’s report. However, he must be cautious not to drag the presidency into the mud. The longer the dark cloud lingers above his head, the more public trust in the office and his government will erode.
Should the court rule against him, he must have the decency to subject himself to parliamentary processes. SA cannot afford another president who spends more time in courtrooms than in governing.
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.