By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
Legal academic Prof Richard Calland has withdrawn from the independent panel that will determine whether there is a prima facie case for President Cyril Ramaphosa’s removal.
After Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula announced the establishment of the panel, which also includes former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, retired judge Thokozile Masipa, the DA and EFF objected against Calland’s inclusion, complaining about his perceived bias in favour of Ramaphosa.
In a statement Calland said he accepted Mapisa-Nqakula’s view “that it may not be in the best interests of the parliamentary process” to continue serving on the panel.
However, he rejected the notion that he is biased.
“I am a fiercely independent person and so I absolutely reject the suggestion of bias that was made against me.”
As a trained lawyer, I am capable of assessing the evidence and reaching conclusions based on an impartial application of the relevant law or rules, without fear or favour. And I would do so regardless of anything that I have said or written in the past in my role as a political commentator,” the UCT professor’s statement reads.
Calland further noted that the controversy around his appointment may disrupt the work of the panel.
“However, this is not the only consideration. I have devoted my career to constitutional democracy and accountability, and the rule of law.
“Accordingly, I do not want unnecessary controversy over my appointment to divert attention from the real issues that are at stake, or the possibility of undue delay arising from it, to clutter or otherwise impair the integrity of such an important constitutional process.
Advocate Mahlape Sello SC will replace legal academic and political commentator Calland on the independent panel.
The panel will decide whether the president will be subject to a process that may lead to his removal from office in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution and Rule 129A-Q of the National Assembly Rules.
“This is a victory for the institution of Parliament and indeed the legitimacy of the Section 89 Inquiry. Professor Calland’s inclusion would have been in contravention of Rule 129G of the National Assembly, in that panel members must be independent and impartial,” DA chief whip Siviwe Gwarube said in a statement.
“Calland – while an expert in the field – has entered the political fray by routinely making his political views public. His inclusion would have been a spectacular error in judgement on the part of the Speaker and the institution.”
The EFF also welcomed the decision.
“The EFF is vindicated and will continue to keep a watchful eye on all of those tasked with investigating the money laundering, kidnapping, torture and the use of state resources to conceal the crimes committed by Cyril Ramaphosa,” reads the EFF’s statement.
Meanwhile the National Assembly debated a motion by DA chief whip Gwarube to establish an ad hoc committee into Phala Phala.
Gwarube had to fight hard to get the motion on the order paper, after the ANC tried to block it last week.
She said the possible establishment of a Section 89 inquiry – that will determine whether Ramaphosa should be removed – doesn’t mean that the other state institutions involved shouldn’t be investigated. “All that is asked of you today, is to allow Parliament to do its work of determining the fact and investigate the serious allegations before us.”
ANC MP Regina Lesoma said, “We all agreed in Parliament, that this to be the best process to establish the facts and evidence. In addition to Parliament, the Hawks, South African Reserve Bank and the Office of the Public Protector are carrying out investigations. Despite this the DA led coalition, is not satisfied that we have four institutions investigating the matter, want an Ad Hoc Committee on top pierce the corporate of veil of a juristic person.”
GOOD MP Brett Herron called on Ramaphosa to urgently take South Africans into his confidence to explain the origin of the cash and the police’s involvement. He says by refusing to answer, the president allows political opportunism to flourish. Herron said it is difficult to take the motion seriously, as the matter is already under scrutiny.
A full sitting of the National Assembly will vote on the motion on Wednesday.