The Constitutional Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on an application filled by the EFF against a decision by the Parliament not to go ahead with an impeachment probe into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal. Picture: Kamogelo Moichela/IOL
The Constitutional Court on Tuesday reserved judgment on an application filed by the EFF challenging Parliament's decision not to proceed with an impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal.
The EFF filed an application to the ConCourt, asking to set aside Parliament's decision not to pursue an impeachment probe into Phala Phala.
The red berets wanted Ramaphosa to be held accountable for the circumstances surrounding the February 2020 break-in at his Phala Phala game farm.
The panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support Ramaphosa being the subject of such an investigation. It was chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo.
The EFF, supported by the African Transformation Movement (ATM), has accused the president of attempting to conceal a crime involving large amounts of foreign currency allegedly hidden at his farm.
The two parties also accused the ANC of using its majority to shield Ramaphosa and evade accountability for his alleged crimes.
The matter was heard in Johannesburg.
According to EFF’s argument, the Phala Phala money was not declared to the South African Revenue Services (SARS).
The EFF’s legal counsel argued that Parliament acted unlawfully and irrationally when it voted not to probe the scandal further.
The EFF sought a court ruling that would automatically refer any prima facie findings to the Impeachment Committee for a comprehensive investigation.
But the court questioned the EFF’s delayed challenge to the matter.
Thus far, the Reserve Bank and the Public Protector have both carried out investigations to determine whether Ramaphosa committed any crimes after the Phala Phala burglary.
However, speaking on behalf of the Speaker and Parliament, advocate Andrew Breitenbach said the House has a legal duty to decide how best to hold the executive branch responsible.
Breitenbach said that contrary to the EFF's suggestion that the rule regulating impeachment should be invalidated, any abuse of the procedure should be handled through judicial challenge.
He said: “Parliament must decide whether or not it agrees with the panel's advice that enough evidence exists or does not exist.”
Ramaphosa’s lawyer Advocate Geoff Budlender blamed the EFF 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, mentioning 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 argued that the 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 the parliament’s decision of cutting off the investigation to the president’s impeachment.
Meanwhile, on Monday EFF leader Julius Malema made it clear that the Phala Phala issue will never die as long as his partner is represented in parliament.
kamogelo.moichela@iol.co.za
IOL Politics