By Lesedi Sibiya-Diplomatic Insider
The Constitutional Court hearing has ruled in favour of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) with a finding that the National Assembly acted unlawfully when they voted in December 2022 to reject section 89 Independent Panel report into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal from 2020.
The judgment was delivered at 10:00 am on Friday morning at Constitutional Hill in Braamfontein, and is marked as one of the most consequential rulings against a President in the entirety of the country’s democratic history.
The court has ordered parliament to correctly process the section 89 panel report, which reopens the possibility of a full impeachment inquiry into Ramaphosa. This ruling comes 521 days after the matter was argued in court, a delay which had sparked public outrage and controversy.
The core argument regarding the ruling is Rule 129 of the National Assembly’s impeachment procedures, as the EFF argued was unconstitutional.
They argued that the Rule 129 given to parliament was unconstitutional as it allowed parliament to override findings of an independent panel and undermined the constitutional purpose of the impeachment process.
The Constitutional Court had agreed that the National Assembly’s 214-148 vote to reject the findings made by the panel was irrational and inconsistent with the foundations of the constitution.
Vuyo Zungula who serves as the ATM parliamentary leader argued that parliament had failed in its oversight to hinder a full impeachment process to proceed which has been validated by the Constitutional court.
“The only rational thing to do would be to further scrutinise” said Zungula. The matter is expected to be returned to parliament, which has an obligation to consider the section 89 panel report and determine whether they will proceed with a full impeachment inquiry.
The Phala Phala scandal dates back to February 2020, when President Ramaphosa’s farm in Limpopo experienced a break in, in which the thieves stole R951 353 that was concealed underneath a sofa.
The President has explained that the money was from a Sudanese businessman, Mustafa Mohamed Ibrahim Hazim, for purchasing 20 buffalo. Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo found gaps in the president’s explanation, which includes that the animals had remained on the farm 2 years later and that there were no official tax records which existed to validate the transaction.
The panel which was assembled to determine whether or not sufficient evidence existed to justify an impeachment inquiry made a series of crucial findings.
The findings were that the President may have committed very serious constitutional violations, including not disclosing foreign currency with doubtful origin as well as active involvement in a private business deal in potential breach of section 96(2) (a) of the constitution, a failure to report theft to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation as required by the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities (PRECCA), and abuse of office through a secret.
Despite there being enough evidence to proceed with a full impeachment inquiry, the panel’s conclusion remained ambiguous which was at the time in the full control of the ANC.
The EFF then took upon themselves to approach the Constitutional Court, with the aim of challenging parliament’s decision to not adopt section 89 panel findings. The EFF felt that parliament had acted irregularly in choosing to set aside a report that suggested that the President may have to account for this case.
Now in this case, the ANC, DA, EFF and MK as well as other parties in the National Assembly must now decide how they will proceed with the vote when the section 89 panel report returns to the chamber, at a time when the local elections are on the horizon.