The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) have taken their battle against President Cyril Ramaphosa to the Constitutional Court, challenging parliament’s decision not to impeach the president over the Phala Phala controversy. The EFF’s main argument is that the democratic process failed to deliver the outcome they desired, according to the president’s legal team.
The Ngcobo panel, led by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, found that there was a case of serious misconduct against President Ramaphosa regarding the origin of funds stolen from his Limpopo game farm and the subsequent efforts to recover the money. This report pushed Ramaphosa to the brink of resignation but was ultimately rejected by the National Assembly in December 2022.
The EFF is now asking the Constitutional Court to overturn the National Assembly’s decision and initiate an impeachment inquiry against the president. They argue that the decision to reject the report was irrational and violated multiple provisions of the Constitution, particularly parliament’s duty to hold the president accountable through impeachment.
The party also challenges the rules governing the impeachment process, specifically rule 129I, which they claim may be open to political abuse by a majority. They are asking the court to declare this rule unconstitutional and give parliament 12 months to amend it.
In response, President Ramaphosa’s legal team maintains that the Ngcobo panel misinterpreted its mandate, arguing that the threshold for impeachment should be sufficient evidence, not just prima facie evidence. They believe that allowing parliament to reject the report for any reason would lead to partisan interests overshadowing legality, regardless of the ruling party.
The case before the Constitutional Court marks the first time the rules governing impeachment have been tested at the highest level. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for future impeachment proceedings and the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government. The African National Congress (ANC) recently made a decision to reject a report based on certain reasoning. During court proceedings, it was argued by Premhid that the distinction in law was not as clear-cut as others claimed it to be. Wim Trengove SC, representing President Ramaphosa, contended that the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) case did not go beyond a rationality review as the constitutional basis for their attack on the rules was ambiguous.
Section 57(1) of the Constitution grants the National Assembly control over its processes, including the power to remove the president under section 89(1). This section allows the National Assembly the discretion to determine how to exercise its authority, including whether to conduct a full impeachment investigation. Trengove argued that under the EFF’s interpretation, the entire process would be beyond the control of the National Assembly until the final vote on the president’s impeachment.
The EFF’s argument, according to Trengove, was contrary to section 89 of the Constitution, which provides the National Assembly with discretionary power to remove the president for serious misconduct. The EFF’s contention that once prima facie evidence is established, an impeachment trial must follow was challenged by Ramaphosa’s attorney, Peter Harris.
Harris further argued that the EFF’s claim of political motivation in the National Assembly’s decision was naive, as all parties were influenced by political factors. He pointed out that the EFF failed to show that the decision was inconsistent with the Section 89 rules, instead focusing on challenging rule 129I.
The EFF’s attempt to expedite the court process for political reasons was highlighted by Trengove, who pointed out the party’s request for an early hearing before the national elections. This move was seen as driven by the EFF’s political agenda rather than a genuine legal concern.
In conclusion, the rejection of the report by the ANC was based on legal reasoning and considerations of the National Assembly’s discretionary powers. The court proceedings shed light on the complexities of the case and the political motivations behind certain actions. The EFF’s challenge was scrutinized for its lack of legal basis and potential political agenda.
