CORNELIUS MONAMA | Of Phala Phala, hypocrisy and the politics of selective outrage

Political vultures have begun circling above the Union Buildings with renewed anticipation, convinced they have finally detected blood and their prey is within reach.

However, for all the noise and manufactured outrage, the buffalo is neither wounded nor collapsing. If anything, President Cyril Ramaphosa is destined to survive this desperate campaign which seeks to seize, through underhand means, what they have repeatedly failed to achieve at the ballot box.

A political frenzy triggered by the recent Constitutional Court judgment on parliament’s handling of the Phala Phala matter has reached a crescendo, with predictable calls for Ramaphosa’s resignation.

These demands, amplified mainly by the MK Party, the EFF and their “political analysts”, are neither legally sustainable nor politically principled. Rather, they expose a dangerous pattern of selective outrage, constitutional opportunism and the cynical weaponisation of accountability mechanisms for factional and electoral gain.

What exactly did the Constitutional Court decide? Firstly, the president was not on trial, and the judgment did not conclude he violated the Constitution.

The court did not establish corruption, money-laundering or criminal conduct. The court dealt with process, legality and parliamentary procedure.

It focused on the conduct and constitutional obligations of parliament, particularly whether the National Assembly properly discharged its oversight responsibilities in handling the Section 89 independent panel report relating to the Phala Phala allegations.

Those who claim otherwise are either misrepresenting the judgment or weaponising it for political mobilisation. The loudest voices demanding Ramaphosa’s resignation behave as though the president had been convicted. This is intellectually dishonest and constitutionally reckless.

The irony is staggering. Many of those presenting themselves as guardians of constitutional morality are individuals and organisations with deeply troubled relationships with accountability and the Constitution itself.

Former president Jacob Zuma, whose supporters seek to lecture the nation about accountability and constitutionalism, was found by the Constitutional Court to have violated his oath of office.

He defied the Constitutional Court during the state capture era, continues to attack judges and institutions, and was ultimately imprisoned for contempt of court. Who will forget his daring escape from the commission of inquiry during lunch? To this day, he remains a fugitive from accountability.

Similarly, Julius Malema and the EFF have repeatedly attacked the judiciary whenever judgments do not go their way. From verbal assaults on judges to reckless insinuations about judicial conspiracies, their conduct has often undermined public confidence in constitutional institutions.

It is therefore astonishing that these same characters seek to position themselves as custodians of constitutional purity. Their outrage is selective because it is politically manufactured. When adverse judgments are handed down against them, they denounce the courts as captured, biased or politically compromised. When judgments appear politically useful against Ramaphosa, they suddenly rediscover respect for judicial authority. This contradiction reveals their commitment is not to constitutionalism, but to expediency.

Attacking Ramaphosa for taking a flawed report to judicial review, and criticising the ANC for backing him, is equally mind-boggling. The accusation that Ramaphosa is “evading accountability” by pursuing legal remedies is flawed and nonsensical.

Seeking judicial review is not evidence of guilt or avoidance. It is the lawful exercise of constitutional rights available to every citizen, including the president. Given the serious legal defects identified in the report, Ramaphosa’s decision to challenge aspects of the Section 89 panel report is entirely legitimate. Seeking judicial review is not only reasonable but necessary to protect the integrity of the constitutional process.

Given that any impeachment process would rely heavily on a report whose legality and rationality are being contested in the courts, rushing impeachment proceedings before the judicial review is completed defies logic. This is not about accountability, but naked political desperation.

Both the woodwork and Nkandla fellows have used the appeal process with monotonous regularity, a right to which they feel Ramaphosa is not entitled. Consider the glaring inconsistency.

Zuma has repeatedly appealed verdict after verdict, employing what has become known as the “Stalingrad strategy”, to delay his corruption trial for years. Similarly, Malema, a convicted criminal, has postponed his imprisonment by lodging an appeal. Those who have systematically exploited every legal avenue to evade accountability lack the moral and ethical authority to position themselves as guardians of the Constitution, or to lecture us on accountability and the need for immediate compliance with court orders.

The true test of democratic leadership is not whether one always wins in court, but whether one respects the constitutional system even in disagreement. On that measure, Ramaphosa’s conduct reflects constitutional maturity and stands in sharp contrast to many of his critics.

Unlike Zuma and Malema, who routinely attack judges and delegitimise institutions whenever outcomes are unfavourable, Ramaphosa has consistently affirmed the authority of the courts and the supremacy of the Constitution.

He has not mobilised supporters against the judiciary. He has not accused judges of conspiracies. He has not undermined the legitimacy of constitutional institutions. Instead, he has utilised lawful constitutional mechanisms to challenge decisions he believes are flawed. This distinction is crucial.

Yes, judges are fallible human beings. That is why constitutional democracies make provision for appeals, rescission and dissenting judgments. I firmly believe the Constitutional Court judgment itself is unlikely to survive an application for rescission on grounds of judicial overreach.

The court did not merely tell Parliament what to do but prescribed, step by step, how it must do it. If left unchallenged, such an approach risks ushering in what some have called “the dictatorship of the judiciary”. The judiciary must be the first to preserve the delicate balance between constitutional oversight and respect for the separation of powers. This judgment has severely curtailed Parliament’s institutional autonomy.

The clamour for Ramaphosa’s removal must be understood in its broader political context. The Phala Phala controversy erupted at a time when his anti-corruption agenda was directly threatening entrenched patronage networks that had flourished during the state capture era.

It is therefore unsurprising that some of the loudest calls for his ousting come from those who feel most threatened by the restoration of independence to law enforcement agencies that were systematically hollowed out during the Zuma era.

This does not mean Ramaphosa should be above scrutiny. But accountability must be grounded in fairness, legality and evidence, not factional vendettas. Alleged constitutional violations should be subjected to formal judicial scrutiny and due process, not surrendered to the anarchy of mob justice.

There is also a dangerous double standard at play. South Africans witnessed years of systemic corruption, institutional collapse and open constitutional defiance under Zuma’s presidency.

Many who remained silent during those years, or actively defended constitutional delinquency, now suddenly demand immediate resignation over a judgment that does not implicate the president.

This inconsistency exposes the opportunistic outrage and hypocrisy of his detractors. They invoke constitutional morality and the rule of law only when it suits their political agenda, while disregarding them whenever they become inconvenient.

Even the accusation that the ANC has been abusing its parliamentary majority rests on shaky grounds. Democracy is, by definition, founded on majority rule. Political parties fight hard in elections to win the majority to implement their mandates.

There is nothing wrong with the ANC exercising the parliamentary majority it legitimately commands. Winning a motion through that majority is not an abuse of power, but democracy in action. It should neither be criminalised nor turned into a source of shame.

• Monama is a former national communication manager of the ANC. He writes in his personal capacity.