By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
A Constitutional Court judgment on whether Parliament erred in its handling of the Section 89 panel report expected within a month, almost 500 days it heard the matter.
Section 89 is one of two parliamentary routes by which a sitting president (or their government) can be removed from office.
It contains three specific grounds for “impeachment” (although the section does not use the word). The National Assembly may remove the president from office (with a supporting vote of at least two thirds of its members), only when the president:
- has committed a serious violation of the constitution or law
- has committed serious misconduct
- or suffers from an inability to perform the functions of office.
President Cyril Ramaphosa faced potential impeachment proceedings regarding the Phala Phala farm scandal, where an independent panel report suggested he may have violated the constitution over hidden foreign currency.
Constitutional Court Chief Registrar Simoné-Lanique Tjamela, said that the preparation of the judgment is at an advanced stage, and its delivery is expected within a month.
The response follows Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema complaint to the Chief Justice Office last month to complain about the length of time to produce a judgment in the matter.
The judgement relates to a February 2020 burglary at Limpopo farm, where millions in foreign currency were stolen.
The matter was brought to court by the EFF after the Reserve Bank, South African Revenue Service and the Public Protector each pursued inquiries into the matter and found no wrongdoing on the part of Ramaphosa.
The investigations came after former correctional services commissioner Arthur Fraser filed criminal complaint against Ramaphosa in 2022, accusing him of covering up a theft at his Phala Phala farm in Limpopo.
Fraser claimed that $4-million concealed in couches and mattresses was stolen from the farm in February 2020.
Months after the allegations surfaced, Parliament, under Section 89 of the Constitution, established an independent panel which had to determine whether Ramaphosa had violated the Constitution or the Code of Executive Ethics.
The committee found there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa might have violated Section 96(2)(a) of the Constitution “by acting in a way that is inconsistent with his office”.
The report was later debated by Parliament in December 2022, when at least 214 MPs voted against its adoption, with 148 votes in favour and two abstentions. The 214 votes consisted of 212 ANC votes and one vote each from Cope and Al Jamah-ah.
This was a big blow for political parties like the EFF, ATM and now MK which have repeatedly called for Ramaphosa to face the music over his involvement.
In court papers, the EFF argued that by failing to adopt the Section 89 report and have the matter referred to the impeachment committee, the National Assembly failed to exercise oversight over Ramaphosa and hold him accountable.
Ramaphosa, the National Assembly and ANC are opposing the EFF’s case. Their arguments centred around the flaws in the Section 89 panel report.
The matter carries significant implications for the separation of powers, testing whether Parliament exercised proper oversight over the president and whether its processes met constitutional muster.
With the court now signalling that its ruling is imminent, attention turns to what could be a defining judgment on executive accountability and the constitutional obligations of the highest office in the land.