President Cyril Ramaphosa has bought himself — and arguably the government of national unity (GNU)— some time by deciding to take the section 89 independent panel report on review.
The decision has certainly caused the voices that were calling for his resignation after the Constitutional Court ordered parliament to take the report to an impeachment committee to subside and the political uncertainty over the GNU’s immediate future to dissipate.
While Ramaphosa has a legal right to take the panel’s report on review, it is uncertain whether the courts will entertain the case or dismiss it.
Although the president says he has identified factual and legal flaws in the report, he will still have to convince the court that such concerns cannot be raised and addressed in the course of the impeachment committee process.
The fundamental question, therefore, is what he will do if the court review route is exhausted without success. Will he stay on as head of state while subjecting himself to a gruelling parliamentary inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the theft of about R15m worth of US dollars from his farm and a seemingly illegal police operation to recover the money?
The president’s own version of events raises further questions over whether he violated the constitution by exposing himself to a possible conflict of interest by continuing to do private business at his farm while serving as head of state.
The parliamentary process that has been prescribed by the Constitutional Court remains the only real hope of getting to the bottom of these issues and for the president to, once and for all, convince South Africans that there was no wrongdoing on his part
What is clear is that while most South Africans have been unsettled by the turn of events, they do demand the full truth behind the Phala Phala game farm saga.
Numerous investigations by various state agencies and a Chapter 9 institution have been conducted over the years without answering crucial questions about the source of the foreign currency and the reasons for the off-the-books investigation that even involved the Namibian government.
The parliamentary process that has been prescribed by the Constitutional Court remains the only real hope of getting to the bottom of these issues and for the president to, once and for all, convince South Africans that there was no wrongdoing on his part.
It is therefore important that the review process be dealt with expeditiously so as not to delay executive accountability to parliament and the public.
Meanwhile, as the leading party in the GNU, the ANC should be using this period to consider what happens if the president’s review bid does not stop the impeachment committee’s inquiry from proceeding. Does the party back him to remain in office in the belief that even if the committee recommends impeachment, the two-thirds majority this will require in the National Assembly will make it virtually impossible?
If, by then, he has no appetite to remain in office, who do they put forward as a successor who would be acceptable to the ANC’s coalition partners in the GNU?
In the past this would have been an easy question, as the party would have nominated Deputy President Paul Mashatile as the successor and relied on its superiority in terms of parliamentary seats to make it happen. But the ANC no longer enjoys a parliamentary majority and can no longer simply impose its will on other parties.
This means that the ANC will have to start informal discussions with its current partners about what happens if Ramaphosa goes, so as to ensure a relatively smooth transition and avoid the collapse of the GNU.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.