Judgment reserved in Ramaphosa impeachment case

Did the panel that recommended President Cyril Ramaphosa face an impeachment hearing over the Phala Phala saga apply the wrong legal standard? Should a President’s first thought be to protect Parliament and its mechanisms to hold him accountable? There are some of the questions a full Bench of the Western Cape High Court will have to decide after judgment was reserved on Ramaphosa’s application to review and set aside the finding of the Section 89 panel, chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, on Friday, reports Legalbrief Africa. The Ngcobo panel found that Ramaphosa had ‘a case to answer on the origin of the foreign currency that was stolen, as well as the underlying transaction for it’ in the Phala Phala saga that has dragged on for four years. A News24 report notes the rules required the parliamentary panel to determine whether there is ‘sufficient evidence’ that the President committed serious misconduct, but the panel instead found merely that there was a ‘prima facie case’ to answer. The President’s case is also that the panel did not consider his evidence or whether he acted in bad faith. The Sunday Tribune reports that Parliament’s Impeachment Committee has been barred from holding public hearings since July and cannot commence its work until the review is decided. Ramaphosa has consistently denied wrongdoing, saying the foreign currency found hidden in a couch at his Phala Phala farm was proceeds from the sale of game.

Advocate Thabani Masuku SC said the United Africans Transformation's central contention is that the President’s review ‘attempts to convert a preliminary screening process into a final adjudication on constitutional guilt’. The panel was a time-limited screening mechanism – not a court – and ‘sufficient evidence’ means sufficient to proceed to the next step, not sufficient to remove a President, he said. ‘The President is not an ordinary litigant, resisting an ordinary investigation,’ Masuku argued, in presenting his case why the impeachment process shouldn’t be stopped midstream. According to News24, he said a President has an obligation not to obstruct the institutions to which he accounts. The President has a duty to protect Parliament, and Parliament has a duty to hold him to account. The right to know what the President was doing with at least $580 000 hidden in a couch on his Phala Phala game farm is ‘is a populist slogan, which has no bearing on this case at all’, as far as Ramaphosa’s counsel, Advocate Wim Trengove SC, is concerned. Trengove was replying to the arguments of the African Transformation Movement, Economic Freedom Fighters, Umkhonto we Sizwe Party and United Africans Transformation, all of whom want Ramaphosa impeached. ‘A number of my learned friends implored you rhetorically, and with respect, quite emotionally, on the proposition that the people are entitled to know. We submit, with respect, that that is a populist slogan, which has no bearing on this case at all,’ argued Trengove before the full Bench, headed by Western Cape Judge President Nolwazi Mabindla-Boqwana, with Judges Mark Sher and Ncumisa Mayosi. ‘The incident, and the President’s role in it, has been investigated by the Public Protector, by SARS, by the Reserve Bank, by a Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence, and by the NPA, and all of them have acquitted the President of any wrongdoing. So to suggest that this inquiry, this case, is the first inquiry into the question and the events and therefore should be a full inquiry is unfounded,’ a second News24 report quotes Trengove as saying.

The impeachment matter dates back to 22 July 2022 when ATM MP Vuyo Zungula tabled the motion in the National Assembly, notes Legalbrief Africa. The motion contained four charges: a serious violation of the Constitution for undertaking paid work; a violation of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act for failing to report the theft to the police; and two counts of serious misconduct for directing his security chief Wally Rhoode to investigate the burglary using state resources. News24 says a key tenet of Ramaphosa’s case is that this finding was an overreach by the panel, as the couch dollars do not relate to any of the charges. Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, for the MKP, said if the court overturns the panel report, ‘the court will participate in a scheme to avoid accountability’. ‘Let the President go and answer to the people of SA,’ he said. Mpofu said the panel simply found that Ramaphosa had a case to answer. ‘What is wrong with that?'