The Constitutional Court has issued directives in the EFF matter to challenge Parliament's decision in 2022 not to adopt the S89 Panel Report into Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm crimes.
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm scandal refuses to go away.
This comes after the Constitutional Court issued directives in the EFF matter to challenge Parliament’s decision in 2022 not to adopt the S89 Panel Report into Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm crimes.
The EFF filed papers in the Concourt to declare the decision taken by the National Assembly not to adopt the Section 89 Independent Panel’s report on Phala Phala, and not refer it to the Impeachment Committee as irrational and unlawful.
In the matter between the EFF as the applicant and the Speaker of the National Assembly, President Cyril Ramaphosa as the third respondent and political parties represented in the National Assembly, the apex court said the matter will be heard in court in due time.
This comes as the application is set for the Concourt on a date yet to be confirmed by Chief Justice Raymond Zondo.
“The application is set down for hearing in due course. The applicant must, on or before Monday July 1, file a paginated record in accordance with section 20(1) and (2) of this court rules pertaining only to those portions of the record that are strictly necessary for the determination of the issues,” the Chief Justice says in his directives.
Judge Zondo has also directed all the parties to submit their written arguments - by Friday, July 19, for the applicant and by Friday, July 26, for all the respondents.
In 2022, the panel led by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, found there was a prima facie case that Ramaphosa may have violated his oath of office in his actions regarding the theft of foreign currency from his Limpopo game farm in 2020.
Last week, The Star reported that African Transformation Movement (ATM) believed the Phala Phala report represented what they called “a quid pro quo arrangement”.
ATM president Vuyo Zungula told The Star on Sunday that at the time Public Protector Kholeka Gcaleka (PP) was conducting her investigation into the matter, she was in need of Ramaphosa’s favour for a promotion from acting public protector to a permanent position, while the president needed her to clear his name.
Zungula said this as his party sought to get the court to set aside the PP’s report which cleared Ramaphosa from any wrongdoing.
He said ATM was confident that the courts will ultimately set aside the report.
“The Public Protector’s report appears to deflect blame away from the president, focusing on other people instead.
“As the ATM, we maintain that the president is guilty of multiple offences, including violating Section 34(1) of Precca, and Sections 96(2)(a) and 96(2)(b) of the Constitution, as well as 2.3(f) of the Executive Ethics Code.
“The reasoning behind the Public Protector’s conclusion is, frankly, baffling to us,” Zungula said.
The Star
siyabonga.sithole@inl.co.za