Party rules: President Cyril Ramaphosa (right) was the deputy president when Jacob Zuma (left), who replaced Thabo Mbeki, was in power. (Delwyn Verasamy/M&G)
A few short years ago, President Cyril Ramaphosa’s foreign currency scandal might have seen him face a vote of no confidence in the National Assembly and the ANC majority to heed a three-line whip to ensure his survival.
Jacob Zuma repeatedly faced such situations plus, in 2016, a motion for his removal in terms of section 89 of the Constitution. He remained in power, though, until he lost control of the ANC and was recalled by the party to make way for Ramaphosa.
But between Nkandla and Phala Phala, a constitutional court ruling — Economic Freedom Fighters and Others vs Speaker of the National Assembly and Another — compelled the legislature to establish rules for an impeachment inquiry where on Wednesday the president ran into serious trouble at the first stage of the process. Here, a panel chaired by retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo found prima facie evidence in information the African Transformation Movement tabled in support of its impeachment motion that he broke the law.
Because the opposition party invoked section 89 rather than tabling a motion of no confidence in terms of section 102, only the president’s fate is at stake and not that of his cabinet.
Ngcobo writes in the report that the task at hand was an unfamiliar one, where the panel was left to interpret the rules for the first time and decide, for example, whether to consider input from the president in response to the charges.
“The rules do not say so but it seems to us obvious that the panel is bound to also consider information placed before it by the president.”
Fair as the decision was, it did not serve Ramaphosa, as the panel found his version vague and implausible.
Part of the rationale for the 2018 court directive to write rules for the impeachment process provided for in section 98 was to ensure that the president is not put through this when he has no case to answer.
“That step must never be taken lightly. It is a momentous act, justified only when sufficient evidence exists to show that the president has a case to answer for his conduct.”
Therefore, the misconduct or breach of the law must be serious and in bad faith.
The panel reiterated that its remit was narrow. It could not investigate the competing claims of the president and his accusers who relied on the allegations of Arthur Fraser to support their motion.
(John McCann/M&G)“We neither have the tools nor the power to excavate beneath the information that we have been provided with to uncover the answers to the unanswered questions,” it wrote, adding that it also did not know what had been established by the Hawks and the South African Reserve Bank in their ongoing investigations.
“That said, we believe the truth of what really happened lies beneath the unanswered questions that are foreshadowed by what we are told from the information placed before us.”
The president’s submissions to the panel — which his office leaked hours before the damning findings in an apparent bid to limit the fallout — echoed what he had already told the public protector and the top echelons of the ANC.
It is potentially lethal for the president that a body imbued with the authority of Ngcobo’s repute did not believe the story that the dollars stolen from his farm came from cattle sales.
The finding is not “final and binding on the National Assembly”, which will convene on Tuesday to debate the report, but it means Ramaphosa will face the chamber with little credibility or likelihood of containing his enemies in the caucus.
Should a resolution to appoint a committee to conduct an impeachment inquiry be adopted — by simple majority — he would face months of public forensic delving into his finances. An eventual recommendation that he should be impeached would require approval by a two-thirds majority.
It is unlikely to reach that point. Ramaphosa is reliably understood to be contemplating resignation. It would throw open the ANC’s elective conference taking place in a fortnight, and probably ease ANC treasurer general Paul Mashatile into the party leadership and the presidency.
But the upheaval could take the country into further uncharted territory should it lead to an early election being called for the first time in the post-apartheid era. Precipitated polls are not in the interest of the ANC, which is forecast to fall below 50% for the first time and which might fare far worse without Ramaphosa.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) will use the fallout from the panel’s findings to try to trigger an early general election using Section 50(1) of the Constitution, arguing simply recalling Ramaphosa would mean South Africa being led by a president with no mandate for the next 18 months.
DA leader John Steenhuisen said in a televised address on Thursday that the official opposition would bring a motion in the National Assembly to vote for the dissolution of Ramaphosa’s government — which can be carried by a simple majority of 50% plus one — which would trigger an early election.
“Section 50(1) of the Constitution makes provision for precisely the scenario we’ve ended up with today, where the president and his government have lost the mandate and legitimacy to govern and a new mandate must be obtained from the people,” Steenhuisen said.
“I will table this motion in the National Assembly and I will call on all members of the house, regardless of party or affiliation, to support it so we can urgently close this chapter of corruption and get back to dealing with our country’s many challenges.”
He said South Africa could not afford to spend the next 18 months being led by a “compromised president fighting for his political life and the rest of his corrupt party circling the skies”, while facing massive economic, energy and social problems.
The DA leader described the crisis facing Ramaphosa’s government as having “the potential to change our entire political landscape and usher in a new chapter for our country”.
For the motion to succeed, Steenhuisen will need not only the buy-in of all the opposition parties in the house, but also either support — or abstentions or spoiled votes — from a significant number of the MPs belonging to the ANC, which took 57.7% of the vote in 2019.
[/membership]