Top ANC leaders clash over Phala Phala impeachment committee

The ANC has missed parliament’s deadline for parties to submit the names of MPs to serve on the Phala Phala impeachment committee, as its leaders clash over who should be deployed.

This is according to well-placed sources in both the ANC and parliament.

They told the Sunday Times yesterday that the party failed to meet the May 22 deadline set by speaker Thoko Didiza, as chief whip Mdumiseni Ntuli and secretary-general Fikile Mbalula argued over who should represent the ANC on the impeachment committee against President Cyril Ramaphosa.

At the same time, tensions have flared between Didiza and DA parliamentary leader George Michalakis, with the former DA chief whip accusing her of compromising the impeachment process by discussing the Constitutional Court judgement in ANC meetings attended by party lawyers.

Those with intimate knowledge of the discussions say the ANC’s delay and internal disagreements now risk holding up the work of the highly anticipated committee.

The party is now under pressure to resolve its differences and submit its nominees by the end of this weekend, as Didiza is expected to publish the names tomorrow.

“Delays in the submission of names mean that the committee cannot be constituted and therefore cannot meet to elect a chairperson and consider a programme. Delays in such an important process are not in the public interest,” said one insider.

“Also keep in mind that the ANC has a minority of MPs on that committee; this means that if all the other parties have submitted their names and they constitute a quorum, then those parties may ... elect a chairperson. The speaker will have to make that call.”

The ANC has nine seats on the 31-member impeachment committee and is understood to be the only party to have missed the deadline. Other major parties — including the DA (five seats), the MK Party (three seats) and the EFF (two seats) — have complied.

Sources said Ntuli favoured deploying senior ANC MPs who served on the ad hoc committee probing allegations of corruption and abuse of power in the criminal justice system, drawing on their experience. Mbalula is said to prefer figures such as former deputy chief whip Doris Mpapane, Donald Selamolela and Boyce Maneli.

Ntuli could not be reached for comment, while Mbalula had not responded to requests for comment by the time of publication. However, speaking to journalists on the sidelines of the ANC NEC meeting yesterday, he said: “You will see that list when it’s unveiled in parliament, maybe in the coming week, as to who represents the ANC. I want to keep it like that.”

The impasse is expected to be resolved by the ANC’s top seven officials.

“The officials will have to resolve this matter. They will direct comrade Mbalula and Ntuli,” another insider said. “It does not affect the process, but the clash between the two men is a problem because we cannot use this process to settle personal battles.”

The insider said some senior ANC NEC members insist the committee chair should come from outside the party to ensure credibility and transparency.

“There are those saying the chair should either be [Rise Mzansi leader] Songezo Zibi or someone from the IFP. The feeling is that the process will only be seen as fair and transparent if it is led by someone outside the ANC,” the insider said.

But others in the ANC argue that the party must retain control of the process, warning that whoever chaired it would wield enormous influence ahead of next year’s elections.

“This will be one of the biggest responsibilities in this administration. If another party chairs the process, they will use it to build their political profile. The IFP will use it in KZN. The chairperson has more power than the members; if they drive the process in a particular direction, you are finished. The ANC must chair it,” the insider said.

Meanwhile, Didiza has strongly rejected Michalakis’s claims that she had compromised her impartiality in the impeachment process.

Michalakis wrote to her last week, saying she was compromising the integrity of the impeachment process by holding meetings with ANC leaders on the matter in the presence of their lawyers.

“As one half of parliament’s executive authority, you may understand that reports of such meetings with political leadership of the same party as the president (who faces an impeachment inquiry), and with legal counsel to the executive branch, are concerning and may risk jeopardising your own appearance of impartiality in the matter, particularly considering your role as the custodian of the impeachment process,” Michalakis wrote in a letter dated May 11.

Didiza responded sharply, criticising the “tone” of the letter and insisting she was entitled to meet whoever she deemed suitable on how parliament should implement the Constitutional Court judgment on Phala Phala.

“It is the National Assembly that must implement the order of the court,” she said. “A section 89 process is constitutionally an exclusive mandate of the National Assembly.

“It therefore falls to the speaker of the National Assembly to ensure that these processes are undertaken, and that is what the speaker is currently seized with. The matter of whom the speaker holds meetings with is irrelevant for the purposes of carrying out the functions of my office in this regard.

“I therefore find the tone of your correspondence unfortunate and lacking insight into my role in ensuring that the order of the court is implemented.”

On Friday, Didiza told journalists she had visited Luthuli House on a day set aside for MPs to attend to their political work.

Mondays in parliament are political party days. We do our party work; all of us have party offices. I’m sure when Michalakis goes to DA party offices, nobody asks him what he was discussing. On Monday, all members do their organisational work.

“Mondays in parliament are political party days. We do our party work; all of us have party offices. I’m sure when Michalakis goes to DA party offices, nobody asks him what he was discussing. On Monday, all members do their organisational work,” she said.

Her office yesterday emphasised that she had engaged all parties represented in parliament when she briefed the chief whips’ forum on her intended approach to implementing the Constitutional Court judgment two weeks ago. It also noted that she had recused herself when the ANC NEC met recently in Cape Town to discuss the Phala Phala judgment.

The EFF has backed Michalakis’ concerns.

EFF national spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said yesterday that while Didiza had not shown bias towards the ANC, the party was concerned about her engagement with ANC leadership on the matter.

“It is a concern for the integrity she holds as the head of the legislature, whose role is to hold the executive accountable,” said Thambo, who is also an EFF MP. “If any of her decisions are influenced by such a meeting, then it is not only a blurring of the separation of powers but a disregard for the boundaries that ought to exist between party and state.

“We’ll have to observe whether any of the speaker’s actions can be perceived as obstructing the impeachment process as directed by the Constitutional Court. As things stand, there has been no indication of that, but this does not mean her conduct in meeting with legal representatives of the ANC is acceptable.”

Didiza also indicated on Friday that she would decide how to respond to the president’s plans to take the section 89 report on Phala Phala on judicial review once court papers are filed.

“We will have to look at the papers once the president has served them, and parliament’s legal services will then advise us on what needs to be done,” she said.