By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
President Cyril Ramaphosa is taking on legal review the section 89 independent panel’s adverse report on Phala Phala.
The report found that Ramaphosa may have violated the Constitution and anti-corruption laws.
Ramaphosa was initially advised not to take the report on review. He subsequently offered his resignation but he has since made an about turn, opting to challenge the report legally and fight back politically.
No court papers have been filed yet, and the decision should not affect a scheduled sitting of the National Assembly where the report of the panel, will be debated.
His lawyer, Peter Harris has confirmed that he will seek to challenge, in the Constitutional Court.
Ramaphosa will approach the constitutional court directly because the report concerns potential impeachment in terms of section 89 of the Constitution.
The three-member team — former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, retired judge Thokozile Masipa, and advocate Mahlape Sello — acknowledged from the get-go in their report that they were working with extremely limited information.
The panel analysed evidence related to the theft of millions in foreign currency from Ramaphosa’s Limpopo farm in 2020.
There has been extensive debate in legal and political circles as to whether the panel exceeded its narrow remit by basing its conclusions on prima facie rather than “sufficient” evidence that the president may have committed a serious breach of the law.
Here are non-exhaustive list of things the panel wrote that it doesn’t know: whether the South African Reserve Bank concluded an investigation into the foreign currency at Phala Phala, and the outcome of the investigation if so; whether Parliament’s Standing Committee on Finance discussed the Phala Phala theft; whether the Public Protector completed her investigation into the matter; what progress has been made by the Hawks and SAPS in probing the Phala Phala theft.
Furthermore, the panel does not know what has come of investigations by the South African Revenue Service, the Financial Intelligence Centre, and Home Affairs.
At their disposal were also distinctly circumscribed powers. They couldn’t summon anyone to give evidence. They couldn’t request any documents. They could only consider “the information placed before [the panel] by members of the National Assembly, and the President’s response to this information”.
All this is obviously ludicrously inadequate in terms of reaching any kind of verdict on the President — which is why the report doesn’t do that.
The ANC national executive committee (NEC) has since abandoned its special sitting meant to discuss the fate of Ramaphosa.
The NEC, which is the party’s highest decision-making body, was due to meet in Nasrec to discuss the recently released Section 89 panel report.
Treasurer general Paul Mashatile told the media that the NEC adjourned after it decided that the report should first be processed by the top officials – Ramaphosa, Deputy President David Mabuza, ANC chair Gwede Mantashe and Mashatile himself.
They must consult Ramaphosa and report to the NWC, before reporting back to the NEC before Tuesday’s meeting of Parliament, which will need to decide whether to adopt the Section 89 report or not.