ANC defeated as parties decide to oppose Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala interdict

The ANC has suffered its first major defeat in parliament’s impeachment committee after opposition parties voted against its attempt to stop it from opposing President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala interdict.

This was after ANC MPs serving on the impeachment committee, led by Mikateko Mahlaule, argued against legal advice that had earlier been presented by Adv William Mokhari (SC), which stated that the committee is obliged to oppose the president’s urgent interdict application.

Ramaphosa has filed an urgent application for the impeachment committee to stay proceedings against him pending a decision on his application for a judicial review of the section 89 panel report that found he has a case to answer over the alleged theft of hundreds of thousands of US dollars at this Phala Phala farm in 2020.

He cited National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza and Makashule Gana, the chairperson of the impeachment committee, as the respective first and second respondents, among others.

Mokhari had also advised the committee that the Western Cape high court may not even have jurisdiction over the matter, as the impeachment proceedings against him stem from an order of the Constitutional Court, the country’s apex court, whose rulings cannot be overturned by the lower courts.

But ANC MPs were not moved by this, with Mahlaule, supported by other colleagues including Cameron Dugmore, Xola Nqola and Dikeledi Direko, arguing that the impeachment committee should not oppose the president’s interdict application.

They argued that the committee should instead file a notice to abide by the court outcome on the matter.

“Given the fact that the president has approached the court, we think that the committee should respect the judicial process and abide by the court’s determination,” said Mahlaule.

“The committee’s role is not to defend the section 89 panel report but to conduct an objective inquiry. Should the court permit the process to continue, by abiding, the committee protects both the separation of powers and the integrity of its proceedings.

“So we are taking a posture that, chairperson, we should abide and in doing so, we must file an explanatory affidavit as the SC said.

“The explanatory affidavit must stay very far and clear off the merits and demerits of the case in court so that we maintain the impartiality of the committee. We would want the speaker to engage the committee, that she be the one doing the opposing if the committee wishes to oppose.”

The ANC was backed by its smaller GNU partners, the PA and Al Jama-ah, who also argued that the impeachment committee should not oppose Ramaphosa’s interdict bid.

The PA went as far as arguing that the committee should seek another legal opinion, despite the one obtained from Mokhari.

But this was rejected by Gana and other opposition parties as impractical, given that all cited parties have until Friday to file notices in the high court.

The parties supporting the decision to oppose the interdict are the MK Party, EFF, FF Plus, DA, UAT, Bosa, ActionSA, ACDP and the ATM.

The IFP was not at the meeting.

MK Party parliamentary leader Dr John Hlophe pointed out that there was already legal precedence on how the lower courts should deal with matters relating to decisions of the Constitutional Court.

“We must oppose the interdict on purely legal grounds. I am convinced that the president stands no legal chance at all, purely on legal grounds.

“In fact, the law is very clear. President Zuma himself tried this when he wanted to evade imprisonment and there was a judgment by justice Mnguni in Natal to the effect that the high court may not interdict an order that emanates from the apex court.

The prevailing opinion based on the inputs made by the parties is that the committee needs to oppose the urgent interdict of the president.

—   Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana

“So I think that law is on our side and we must oppose it purely on legal principles and not get into the merits of the application,” said the former Western Cape high court judge president, who himself was impeached from office.

Bosa’s Mmusi Maimane took matters further, suggesting that parallel to opposing the interdict application, the committee should ask Didiza to request a declaratory order from the Constitutional Court, clarifying how the lower courts should relate to its orders.

He argued that this would help prevent possible lengthy appeals on the matter, which may stall the impeachment process.

After a debate that lasted almost three hours, lGana made his ruling that left the ANC out in the cold.

“The prevailing opinion based on the inputs made by the parties is that the committee needs to oppose the urgent interdict of the president,” said the Rise Mzansi MP.

“I as the chairperson of the impeachment committee align myself with the prevailing opinion of members of this committee that we should oppose the application and I will do so on behalf of the committee, not just in my individual capacity because I was cited chairperson of the committee.

“I intend representing the committee in opposing the interdict application by the president. And as it was proposed, we will also petition the speaker in opposing this application. But if the speaker decides not to oppose this application, as the chairperson of the committee and the second respondent, I will represent the committee in opposing the application.”