NATIONAL REPORTER|Published
AS President Cyril Ramaphosa awaits a decision on his attempt to stop the Parliamentary investigation into his removal from office because of the Phala Phala issue, the outcome of that may not be the end of the matter, as he still has many other legal and political avenues he can use.
The High Court of the Western Cape heard the urgent application before three full judges including André le Grange, Matthew Francis and Diane Davis on Wednesday and Thursday, and reserved a decision.
It is expected that the decision will come out this week.
The subject of the Parliamentary investigation is the theft of more than half a million US dollars in 2020, which was hidden in Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm near Bela-Bela, Limpopo.
Although the president surrendered to the court, the parliamentary committee continues its work.
The chairman of the committee, Mr. Makashule Gana, said that the committee will meet on Wednesday to consider the issue of who will lead evidence from people nominated by political parties, and instructed the Parliament’s legal office to first look at the availability of senior lawyers to work with it.
“We have been saying as a committee that until the time when the court that has the power to make decisions shows that we should not continue, if this does not happen we will continue with our plans,” said Gana.
Gana said that their plans to appoint a person to lead the evidence, is the preparation and setting of the terms of their work and has nothing to do with the petition filed by the president in court.
He said the committee is scheduled to meet three times before it begins its work on witness hearings next month.
Political parties had a deadline of July 10 to propose policies to be implemented by the committee. The committee will then decide on the terms of its operation at its next meeting.
Legal experts said Ramaphosa may file an appeal at the Court of Appeal if he is denied by the Cape Town court.
If he is rejected in all the lower courts, he has the right to go all the way to the Constitutional Court.
A legal expert, Mr. Mpumelelo Zikalala, speaking to IOL explained the possibility and said: “Anyone who is dismissed has the right to appeal.”
“This means that they can return to the same court and ask for permission to proceed to a higher court. If the Western Cape court refuses to refer the matter, it will not mean the end of it. This can mean that anyone who is not satisfied can refer the matter to the Court of Appeal and ask it to hear the matter.”
He said that any party that is not satisfied with this matter has the same rights to pursue it.
“It’s not just the president. Anyone can pursue the issue until it reaches the Constitutional Court.”
If either side files a request to appeal the dispute, the process can take a year, or more, before the matter is fully resolved. This is because of the time it usually takes for these courts to hear and make decisions on disputes like this.
So the outcome of the decision, regardless of who is in favor, will mean that it is still a long way off.
Advocate Anton Katz SC, of ATM, said in court that the president’s documents had buried him, as the investigation began in May, before Ramaphosa filed his application for the ban in June.
“It’s like the horse is out of the stable, he’s still trying to make excuses not to go out,” said Katz in court.
“The thing he tried to prevent has already happened,” he insisted.
Ramaphosa’s lawyer, Advocate Wim Trengove SC, concluded his argument on Thursday by telling the court that his client would face what he called irreversible injustice if the matter continued while Parliament was working on the challenged report.
Ramaphosa’s lawyer is the point that was the basis of everything he said in the request to stop the work of the committee.
Ramaphosa asked the Western Cape High Court to dismiss the report of the panel led by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, retired judge Thokozile Masipa and lawyer Mahlape Sello SC.
The report found in November 2022 that the president may have a case to answer for.
The hearing of the matter with the report in the court was set for September 2 to 4 of the same month.
If the request for a ban is unsuccessful and the committee continues its work, it may end up being voted on in Parliament.
Political analyst, Professor André Duvenhage, said the numbers have changed since the ANC rejected Ngcobo’s report by vote.
When members of Parliament voted against the adoption of the report in December 2022, the ANC had 230 seats out of 400, and won with 214 out of 148 votes.
The 2024 election reduced the ANC’s seats to 159, which is not enough to use the majority to spend things in Parliament.
The removal of the president according to section 89 requires the support of at least 267 of the 400 members of Parliament, and Duvenhage said that the ANC may not be able to protect him numerically if it is voted to remove him from office.
The two opposition parties, MKP and ATM, separately filed a motion of no confidence in the president according to section 102 of the Constitution; this method only requires a majority, not the 66 percent majority (two-thirds) required in the process of removing the president from office where he is deprived of all benefits.
MKP has written to the Speaker of Parliament, Mrs. Thoko Didiza, requesting that when the voting is done, it should be done secretly instead of openly.
The president’s spokesperson, Mr. Vincent Magwenya, said yesterday that Ramaphosa is not thinking at all about resigning.
Magwenya said that Ramaphosa’s move to prevent the committee from starting work will also help those who come after him.
“The report is full of legal errors, so it cannot be used to remove the president from office,” said Magwenya.