South Africa’s third biggest political party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has filed court papers to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s bid to set aside the Section 89 Phala Phala report. 

Initially, the EFF wanted to be part of the respondents in the application by Ramaphosa and wrote to the president’s lawyers asking why they were not part of the application, as they had made submissions before the panel and are the third biggest party in the National Assembly. 

In correspondence before the court, Ramaphosa’s lawyers responded to the EFF saying the fact that the party had made submissions before the panel does not entitle it to become a party in the current litigation.

“The relief sought by the President is an attempt to avoid the type of accountability the EFF is entitled to ensure that it takes place,” said the party’s deputy president Floyd Shivambu in the application stamped by the court on 10 January.

EFF Intervention Application

Stamped Notice of Motion from ConCourt

“It is the type of relief which materially and adversely affects the constitutional right and duty of the EFF to call for and ensure that the President accounts to the National Assembly and its members as well as the public.” 

Shivambu said the President has so far refused to account for his conduct in the Phala Phala saga. 

The party also argues that the report is not reviewable as there are still processes to be followed by the National Assembly. This is despite the fact that the National Assembly voted against the adoption of the report in December last year. 

Ramaphosa avoided impeachment proceedings just three days before the ANC Nasrec elective conference when ANC Members of Parliament voted against the adoption of the panel report. 

A handful of ANC MPs, including Cooperative Governance Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, openly defied the party line to support impeachment proceedings against Ramaphosa.

Visit Daily Maverick’s home page for more news, analysis and investigations

Others that voted in support of the adoption of the report were international relations committee chairperson Supra Mahumapelo, stepped-aside transport committee chairperson Mosebenzi Zwane following his corruption trial, tourism committee chairperson Tandi Mahambehlala and Mervyn Dirks, who was dropped from public accounts watchdog Scopa for asking it to investigate the leaked audio tapes of Ramaphosa talking about public resources being used for ANC campaigning. 

Mahambehlala later changed her vote and said it was recorded incorrectly and decided to tow the party line. 

Read on Daily Maverick: Ramaphosa’s Farmgate scandal – a timeline of what we know (and don’t know) so far

Law experts also questioned the president’s move to petition the Concourt before the outcome of the National Assembly vote on the report. 

Ramaphosa is trying to remove the report hanging over his head which will affect his renewal path, with the chief argument that it was legally flawed and based on hearsay. 

The panel had found that Ramaphosa had a case to answer that there was prima facie evidence that he may have committed a number of serious violations of the constitution and the law.

“What is even more untenable is the prayer that the National Assembly’s steps taken pursuant to the report be declared unlawful and invalid without even knowing what steps will be taken,” argues Shivambu. 

“The rules (of Parliament) provide enough measures for Parliament and the impeachment committee to correct any irregularity that may stem from the report which seems to be the concern of the President.” 

Last month, ATM president Vuyo Zungula also opposed the President’s application arguing that Ramaphosa’s requests are without merit and Ramaphosa should first have approached lower courts as the matter had not been subject to judicial scrutiny by other courts. 

Like Shivambu, Zungula said the work of the Independent Panel was not the work of Parliament. He argued that the report by the Independent Panel was not reviewable because such reports were merely recommendations and not final decisions capable of creating direct consequences. 

Ramaphosa, on the other hand, argues that the panel “misconceived its mandate and misjudged the information”. “It moreover strayed beyond the four charges and considered matters not properly before it,” the court documents read.

The panel’s report was used by Ramaphosa’s detractors in a bid to deny him a second term as the ANC’s president in the December elective conference. Ramaphosa has maintained that he is innocent and said Phala Phala dollars came from animal sales, not money laundering. 

The Sudanese businessman who allegedly bought 20 buffalo for $580,000 in cash from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm told eNCA’s Annika Larsen that “it was a normal business transaction”.

Hazim Mustafa is a Sudanese millionaire, living in Dubai, Mustafa told Sky News that he paid $580,000 in cash for 20 buffalo from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm in December 2019 — but had no idea that the animals, or the farm itself, were owned by the President.

eNCA’s Larsen visited Mustafa and his South African wife, Bianca O’Donoghue, at their home in Dubai, to get Mustafa’s version of events, leading up to his purchase of the buffalo, which he still hasn’t received.  

Speaking to Larsen about the Phala Phala purchase — and dressed in head-to-toe Gucci — Mustafa said he was surprised to be dragged into the media spotlight of an international scandal.

“It’s nothing to do with His Excellency the President — I just went there and I bought cattle and buffaloes from the farm,” said Mustafa.

The Constitutional Court is set to decide on the next step. DM