Organised labour says it notes and respects President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to not resign over the Constitutional Court judgment on Phala Phala — but the “correct political route” is for him to resign.
In his televised address to the nation on Monday night, Ramaphosa said he would take the independent panel report that found prima facie evidence that he may have violated the constitution and committed serious misconduct linked to the 2020 theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo “on review on an expeditious basis”.
“I therefore respectfully want to make it clear that I will not resign,” Ramaphosa said. Resigning would be “to give credence to a panel report that unfortunately has grave flaws”, he said.
“To do so would be to abdicate the responsibility that I assumed when I became president of the republic. To resign now would be to give in to those who seek to reverse the renewal of our society, the rebuilding of our institutions and the prosecution of corruption. I fully intend to continue serving the people of South Africa and to advance their interests. There is still much work to be done,” he said.
Cosatu parliamentary co-ordinator Matthew Parks said: “We welcome the president’s taking the nation into confidence on this pressing matter and are comforted by his consistent and principled affirmation of the judiciary’s independence and its constitutionally enshrined role with regards to holding the executive accountable at all times.”
Parks said this was not the time to play to the public gallery, “irrespective of the pending local elections and politicians’ desperation for social media likes and media headlines”.
As a law-abiding federation, Saftu respects the president’s constitutional right to challenge the findings of the panel. However, Saftu remains of the view that the correct political route should have been for the president to resign
— Zwelinzima Vavi, Saftu general secretary
“It is equally sacrosanct that President Ramaphosa be afforded his constitutionally guaranteed right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or, in the event of an impeachment, by parliament. Social media hysteria has no legal standing,” he said.
South African Federation of Trade Unions (Saftu) general secretary Zwelinzima Vavi said people, including Ramaphosa, had the right to approach the courts when “they believe they have been wrongly accused or that a process has been legally flawed.
“As a law-abiding federation, Saftu respects the president’s constitutional right to challenge the findings of the panel. However, Saftu remains of the view that the correct political route should have been for the president to resign,” he said.
The allegations Ramaphosa faced “seriously compromise his moral and political standing”.
“A president carrying such serious allegations cannot credibly lead the fight against corruption nor act decisively against ministers and senior officials facing allegations of wrongdoing. This weakens the authority of the Presidency and deepens the crisis of public trust,” said Vavi.
“Saftu is also concerned that the president’s decision to seek judicial review may have the practical effect of placing the parliamentary impeachment process in abeyance, delaying accountability at a moment when the country needs clarity and decisive leadership.”
Saftu believed the interests of the country, the integrity of public office, and the fight against corruption would have been “better served by his resignation”.
This remains an ANC-made crisis, rooted in serious unanswered questions about the president’s conduct and the ANC’s long record of shielding its own leaders from accountability
— Geordin Hill-Lewis, DA leader
DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis said Ramaphosa’s decision to take the independent panel report on review must not be used to delay parliament’s work.
“It is his legal right to approach the high court, and the DA respects due process, the courts and the rule of law. President Ramaphosa should bring any review application with due haste and on an expedited basis so that the legal position is clarified quickly and this matter is not delayed unnecessarily,” he said.
“Parliament must also now take urgent legal advice on the implications of the president’s incoming review, including whether it affects the establishment and work of the impeachment committee, or whether the committee may proceed while the review is under way.
“Given the serious constitutional consequences of this matter and the massive public interest in it, parliament must take the South African people into its confidence by sharing that legal advice once it receives it. This matter must be handled lawfully, transparently and with the constitutional seriousness it deserves.
“The DA will continue to be guided by the constitution, the rule of law and the legal position before parliament. This remains an ANC-made crisis, rooted in serious unanswered questions about the president’s conduct and the ANC’s long record of shielding its own leaders from accountability.”
The matter stems from the theft of foreign currency from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm in Limpopo in 2020, and the subsequent questions raised about the source of the money, the reporting of the theft and the steps allegedly taken to recover the funds.
Ramaphosa has consistently denied wrongdoing and has said the money is linked to the sale of buffalo.
The controversy triggered a section 89 process in parliament, the constitutional mechanism through which the National Assembly may remove a president from office for a serious violation of the constitution or the law, serious misconduct, or inability to perform the functions of office.
On Friday the ConCourt set aside the National Assembly’s December 13 2022 decision not to refer the independent panel report to an impeachment committee
In 2022 an independent panel chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo found that there was prima facie evidence suggesting Ramaphosa may have a case to answer. The panel’s report did not make a final finding of guilt but found the matter warranted further parliamentary consideration.
However, in December 2022 the National Assembly voted not to adopt the panel’s report. That decision effectively stopped the impeachment process from advancing to the next stage, which would have been the establishment of an impeachment committee to investigate the matter further.
The EFF, joined by the ATM, challenged the National Assembly’s decision in the ConCourt. The parties argued parliament had acted unlawfully by refusing to refer the report to an impeachment committee and by relying on rules that allowed the National Assembly to halt the process before the allegations had been properly investigated.
On Friday the ConCourt set aside the National Assembly’s December 13 2022 decision not to refer the independent panel report to an impeachment committee. The court also found rule 129I of the National Assembly rules unconstitutional and invalid and directed an interim reading-in of the rule pending formal amendments by parliament.
The court held that the National Assembly is constitutionally obliged to determine whether a president has committed conduct falling within section 89(1) of the constitution and that such a determination must be rational, evidence-based and attributable to the National Assembly as the ultimate decision-maker.
After the judgment, parliament said National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza has determined the process to be followed. According to parliament, Didiza will formally inform the National Assembly of the independent panel report by tabling it through the appropriate parliamentary journals and will provide Ramaphosa with a copy of the report, as directed by the court.
Didiza will also initiate the process to constitute an impeachment committee in terms of rules 129J to 129O, formally refer the independent panel report to that committee, and refer the ConCourt judgment to the National Assembly subcommittee on the review of rules for the necessary amendments.
Parliament said she will still determine the programme, procedural arrangements, timeframes and institutional support needed for the committee to conduct and finalise its work.
- With Tara Roos
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.