President Cyril Ramaphosa will go to court to challenge a parliamentary report that found he may have a case to answer in the Phala Phala scandal. (Photo: Gallo Images / Frennie Shivambu) Looking confident but stressed, on Monday, 11 May, President Cyril Ramaphosa told South Africans that he would not resign even as calls were made for him to do so.
Instead, he will go to court to review Parliament’s Section 89 panel report on the Phala Phala saga that could lead to his impeachment.
The review will seek to overturn the report, which probed his response to the theft of US$580,000 from a couch at his Phala Phala farm.
On Friday, 8 May, the Constitutional Court ruled that the panel’s report should be tabled in Parliament for processing and interrogation by an impeachment committee.
“This is why I address you. There are calls for me to resign and a number of calls for me not to resign. I want to clearly state my position.”
“To do so [resign] would give credence to a report which has grievous flaws. [It would mean] to give in to those who seek to reverse the renewal [of our country],” said Ramaphosa.
Legal experts canvassed by Daily Maverick say that the parliamentary impeachment committee could continue its proceedings as instructed by the Constitutional Court, even as the review is lodged in court. It can take up to a year for a review to be heard, but Ramaphosa said he would seek a review on an expeditious basis.
He said there had been “much debate, concern and uncertainty” following the judgment and that he had spent the weekend reflecting on what to do.
“I accept the Constitutional Court’s ruling. I have reflected on what the judgment means for the country, for the rule of law and for the office I occupy. I am mindful of severe difficulties the country is confronted with,” said Ramaphosa, who added that the Constitution also provided for the right to review an adverse report.
“I have consistently maintained that I have not stolen public money nor committed any crime. I said I would cooperate and have cooperated. I will continue to cooperate. In December 2022 [when the report was tabled], I said I disagreed with its findings and process of reasoning.”
‘Hearsay evidence’
Ramaphosa said he believed the Section 89 panel report had relied on hearsay evidence. While he challenged in the Constitutional Court at the time, he was denied direct access and did not pursue the legal challenge after the National Assembly then rejected the report.
“I decided to take it on review. I was advised the panel report was capable of being reviewed on misconception of mandates and grave errors of law. The National Assembly vote meant the report had no practical or legal consequence. I didn’t proceed with the review but reserved my right to review should circumstances change,” said Ramaphosa.
Ramaphosa and his legal team face several hurdles. The first is time. Review applicants have 180 days to lodge proceedings in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
The second is getting an expeditious review. The president will have to make a substantial argument for the case to be heard expeditiously; the Constitutional Court previously disallowed direct access to that court when Ramaphosa first tried to review it.
Meanwhile, News24 has reported that a lot more cash appears to have been stolen from Phala Phala than Ramaphosa first revealed – R15-million rather than R10-million.
At the same time, former spy boss Arthur Fraser, who first laid criminal concealment charges against Ramaphosa, has claimed that he was offered hush money of R50-million after he laid the charges, according to this report in the Sunday World. DM