President Cyril Ramaphosa intends taking on legal review the section 89 independent panel’s adverse report on Phala Phala released earlier this week.
(Brenton Geach/EPA)
President Cyril Ramaphosa intends taking on legal review the section 89 independent panel’s adverse report on Phala Phala released earlier this week.
The decision was announced by ANC treasurer general Paul Mashatile at a meeting of the national executive committee (NEC) on Friday, and confirmed by well-placed sources.
No court papers have been filed yet, and the decision should not affect a scheduled sitting of the National Assembly where the report of the panel, chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, will be debated.
Ramaphosa could approach the constitutional court directly because the report concerns potential impeachment in terms of section 89 of the Constitution.
Friday’s decision sends the clearest signal yet that he does not intend resigning in response to the findings of the panel.
The president’s decision was announced by Mashatile amid protest about Ramaphosa’s absence at the NEC meeting.
[related_posts_sc article_id=”534222″]
ANC chairperson Gwede Mantashe said the president had decided it would not be proper for him to attend the meeting convened to discuss the panel’s report.
There was strong objection to this stance, including from former president Thabo Mbeki, the Mail & Guardian understands.
At this point, Mashatile then indicated that the president had decided to challenge the findings in court.
The panel was established as the first step in an impeachment process, in response to a motion filed by the African Transformation Movement.
The panel found that he has a case to answer about the source and sum total of the foreign currency stolen from his farm in February 2020 and the clandestine efforts to recover it.
It further found that the fact that no docket was opened into burglary, pointed to prima facie (on first impression) evidence that the president broke the law by failing to report a theft of more than R100 000 because anti-corruption legislation imposed a duty to do so.
“In our view this information, prima facie, discloses that the president violated section 34(1) read with section 34(2) of [the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act],” the panel said.
There has been extensive debate in legal and political circles as to whether the panel exceeded its narrow remit by basing its conclusions on prima facie rather than “sufficient” evidence that the president may have committed a serious breach of the law.
It is the first time that a panel of its kind has been established in terms of rules drafted by the legislature in compliance with a 2017 constitutional court ruling — Economic Freedom Fighters and Others vs Speaker of the National Assembly and Another.