By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Section 89 Impeachment Committee has recommended Griffiths Madonsela SC to lead the impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
This follows a tight vote with Madonsela securing 9 votes against 7 for Advocate Kate Hoffmeyer, with 13 abstentions.
The African National Congress (ANC) had 11 votes at their disposal, but chose to abstain, as did the Patriotic Alliance (PA) and Al-Jama-ah.
Madonsela earned the recommendation with three votes from the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party, two from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and one vote each from the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), Build One South Africa (BOSA), African Transformation Movement (ATM) and United Africans Transformation (UAT).
Hofmeyer’s votes came in the form of five from the DA and one vote each from the Freedom Front Plus and ActionSA.
Chairperson Makashule Gana clarified that the committee’s job was to make a recommendation, and that parliament would officially make the appointment.
Gana added that once the evidence leader was appointed, Madonsela would then recommend two assistants for consideration.
He said Parliament would now begin the necessary processes, including supply chain and procurement procedures, before formally appointing the evidence leader.
“We will then recommend to Parliament to start the engagements that are done in line with all the supply chain and procurement that they do when they appoint an evidence leader.”
“Once the evidence leader is appointed, the evidence leader will then recommend the two assistants, who will then work to assist the committee.”
Madonsela is a prominent senior counsel and former member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). His areas of practice have included commercial, administrative and constitutional law, commissions of inquiry, civil litigation, insurance, labour law, land restitution and criminal law.
The committee also considered a legal opinion on the committee’s right to compel the president to testify in his defence on misconduct charges.
It’s been a week since the committee resolved to appeal a High Court ruling that has interdicted it from holding public hearings into the conduct of Ramaphosa in connection with events that unfolded on his Phala Phala farm in 2020, when United States (US) Dollars stashed in a couch were stolen.
The legal opinion circulated to members of Parliament (MPs) in preparation for Wednesday’s meeting suggests that Ramaphosa can’t invoke the criminal law principle to remain silent in a parliamentary setting.
An opinion compiled by Parliament’s legal advisors grappled with four key questions MPs Chief among these is whether the President can be compelled to testify at the Section 89 inquiry.
The opinion suggests the president would not be treated differently from any other witness called to Parliament to give evidence, and that he should be afforded the opportunity to testify voluntarily, failing which he may be summoned to do so.
In considering the legal opinion, the committee agreed that the President will not be the first witness to appear before the committee. It must first establish a case to which the President can respond.
Gana, noted the committee’s powers under the Constitution. “We hope that the matter will not reach the point where the President must be summoned. However, if he refuses to appear, the committee will have to summon him.”
In considering the draft terms of reference, Members were allowed to make further inputs. The document as amended following inputs will now be referred to Parliament’s Legal Services Division for refinement. “This will include ensuring consistency in the use of language and applying a uniform drafting style, “Gana said. Once that work has been completed, the document will again be presented to the committee.