By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The National Assembly (NA) speaker Thoko Didiza has rejected African Transformation Movement (ATM) request to initiate a Section 89 inquiry, following the release of Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) report on the Phala Phala farm theft saga.
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.
The panel 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 her response to ATM leader Vuyo Zungula, the Speaker says Rule 129 A sets a clear procedure in dealing with the motion envisaged in your letter. Among others the requirement is that a member proposing such an inquiry, must submit a motion that is clearly formulated in a form of charge setting out specific breaches to which speaker must apply her mind. For all intents and purposes this has not been complied with and therefore makes your request incompetent to deal with at this stage.
Furthermore, Didiza said, the matters raised in your letter have already been dealt with in the motion you previously submitted. There are no provisions in the current Rules to re-initiate the process. I have also been advised that the Constitutional Court judgement is imminent, we will be guided, concluded Didiza.
The Phala Phala saga began in June 2022 when criminal charges were laid against President Cyril Ramaphosa and members of his security detail.
Former director-general at the State Security Agency Arthur Fraser alleged that Ramaphosa and his team had covered up a February 2020 burglary at his game farm, where large sums of foreign currency—allegedly concealed in furniture—were stolen.
The money was around $580,000, was said to be a payment from Sudanese businessman Hazim Mustafa for 20 buffalo.
The report, compiled by the IPID and declassified after a legal battle led by ActionSA, concludes that no case docket was registered, no official investigation initiated. Instead, state resources were deployed in what IPID determined to be an unlawful investigation into what was effectively a private matter.
According to the IPID report, Ramaphosa informed head of security detail Willie Rhoode about a break-in at his Phala Phala farm and the subsequent theft of cash.
But a case number for the matter was only registered with the police two years later, after the matter was exposed publicly.
The IPID report shows that in 2020, Rhoode ran an off-the-books mission to recoup the president’s money.
Rhoode was joined by Constable Hulani Rekhoto and Ramaphosa’s political advisor, Bejani Chauke, in his exploits.
This included interviewing suspects at the Limpopo-based farm, chasing leads in Cape Town and even travelling to Namibia.
The report said Rhoode used police resources for his rogue mission, but in official records, he disguised the purpose of the trips as official work for the president.
Rhoode was subjected to an internal disciplinary process regarding this matter and was found not guilty.
IPID concluded that the misconduct “detrimentally affects the image of the Service” and justifies an expedited process and has called for feedback on when such proceedings will be initiated and how they will be finalised in line with its oversight mandate.
Meanwhile the Constitutional Court ruling 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.