MPs want answers from President Cyril Ramaphosa on the extension of deployment of SANDF to the DRC which will come to the tune of R2.3 billion. Picture: File
Parliamentarians want President Cyril Ramaphosa to clarify his remarks regarding “neutralising rebels in pursuit of peace” in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
They also want Ramaphosa to explain why he did not meet the stipulated deadline to inform Parliament on the extension of the deployment of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) soldiers in the conflict-ridden Congo.
This emerged when the joint standing committee on defence met on Friday to consider a letter the president wrote to the presiding officers on the eve of Christmas last year.
In his letter, Ramaphosa informed National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza and National Council of Provinces chairperson Refilwe Mtshweni-Tsipane that he has authorised the extension of employment of 2 900 SANDF soldiers for service in fulfilment of an international obligation of South Africa towards the Southern African Development Community (SADC) under Operation Thiba.
He said the extension was “in order to support and assist the government of the DRC in its efforts to neutralise illegal armed groups and negative forces in the conflict-affected areas of the DRC, thereby ultimately restoring peace and security”.
The extension of the deployment is from December 16, 2024, until December 15, 2025.
Ramaphosa had early last year extended the SANDF deployment from April 16 to December 20, 2024.
“The expenditure expected to be incurred is estimated to amount to R2 371 108 511,” he said.
EFF MP Carl Niehaus expressed concern that the letter referred to a decision already taken to extend the deployment when the MPs were in recess.
Niehaus said Ramaphosa took eight days to inform as opposed to doing so within seven days.
“The president was evidently clear that our committee will not be able to deal with this issue at that time. If you want something to be pushed under the carpet, you can’t find a better time than Christmas Eve to send the letter,” he said.
He noted with concern that 14 soldiers have since died in the DRC after Ramaphosa’s decision.
“We as the committee must state unequivocally clear that the president acted illegally in the way he informed us. He did not inform us on time.”
Niehaus had the committee convened earlier to consider the letter, they could have rejected his decision.
DA MP Chris Hattingh said Ramaphosa’s letter came for their consideration at an unfortunate time.
“There was not any oversight over the previous deployment, not written report from minister,” Hattingh said.
He echoed Niehaus’ sentiments that had they met earlier to consider the letter, they should have rejected the request to authorise the extension of the deployments in the DRC.
“We know that the forces are there and that we want to decide that the deployment should be terminated as soon as practically possible, immediately initiate withdrawal from the DRC,” he said.
However, ANC MP Windy Plaatjies said it was not the first time they had to sign off on the president’s extension of the deployment of SANDF soldiers.
“We should get advice on why we are in the DRC and we were told there is a procedural process to get out of certain deployments... I would not say South Africa must withdraw from peacekeeping,” Plaatjies said.
MK Party’s Mabel Rweqana questioned the reasons given for the deployment of the soldiers in the conflict-ridden area because “the letter says in order to support and assist the government of DRC in its efforts to neutralise”.
“South Africa was not supposed to find itself interfering in the affairs of that country,” Rweqana said.
After some discussion, which became highly charged amid points of orders, co-chairperson Malusi Gigaba said the legal advice they received was that they could write back to Ramaphosa asking for an explanation if they were not satisfied with his letter.
“We don’t need to divert ourselves,” Gigaba said.
DA MP Maliyakhe Shelembe said that they should raise their concerns because the letter was sent to Parliament for noting.
“We can argue but it is to inform us that a decision was taken,” Shelembe said.
Gigaba said they would draft a letter to be served before the committee to adopt their resolution after noting the concerns raised about the period in which Ramaphosa informed them of his decision.
“The committee note that the deployment has taken place and that we seek an explanation from the president on why the letter arrived outside the seven-day window.
“We require an explanation from the Presidency on the exact meaning of the paragraph that talks about supporting DRC government to neutralise rebels in pursuit of peace so that we can have clarity,” he said.
mayibongwe.maqhina@inl.co.za