Ramaphosa takes Phala Phala report to court in bid to block impeachment process
Why this matters: an international story with cross-border implications worth tracking.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has launched a fresh legal bid in the Western Cape High Court to overturn the 2022 independent panel report that found prima facie evidence he may have committed serious misconduct and violated the Constitution in relation to the Phala Phala farm scandal, as parliament moves closer to constituting an impeachment committee following a Constitutional Court ruling earlier this year. The application, filed by attorneys Harris Nupen Molebatsi Inc, seeks an order reviewing and setting aside the report compiled under Rule 129G of the National Assembly rules by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, retired judge Thokozile Masipa and advocate Mahlape Sello under Rule 129G of the National Assembly rules. In his founding affidavit, Ramaphosa argued the panel misunderstood both its mandate and the legal threshold required under section 89 of the Constitution. He quoted the National Assembly rules’ definitions of “serious misconduct” as “unlawful, dishonest or improper behaviour performed by the President in bad faith” and “a serious violation of the Constitution or the law” as conduct “amounting to an intentional or malicious violation of the Constitution or the law performed in bad faith”. “The President may only be removed for intentional or malicious conduct in bad faith. Only deliberate misconduct can find the removal of the President,” the affidavit stated. Ramaphosa contended that the panel incorrectly relied on a prima facie standard. “In the context of the scheme for the removal of the President from office, we therefore construe the phrase ‘whether sufficient evidence exists’ to mean whether … the President has a case to answer.” He further argued the panel failed to distinguish between “information” and admissible evidence and improperly relied on hearsay material. “The Panel did not apply any of these mandatory provisions. It did not appreciate the default rule that hearsay evidence must be excluded … As a result, the Panel made c