D-Day for Ramaphosa

As the Constitutional Court delivers its judgment on the Phala Phala matter today, political parties are preparing for a ruling that could determine whether parliament must revisit its decision to block an impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa. The case before the apex court concerns an application by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM) after parliament rejected a Section 89 panel report that found a prima facie case requiring further investigation into allegations linked to the Phala Phala farm. The matter has drawn comparisons with the Nkandla judgment involving former president Jacob Zuma, in which the Constitutional Court clarified parliament’s duties in holding the executive accountable. Legal expert Elton Hart said parliament followed proper procedure but the issue now was rationality. “I look at it from my perspective that parliament sort of complied with its constitution or it aligned itself with constitutional principles. It means that parliament, when they did everything, they worked according to the script.” He said the panel’s findings should have triggered further inquiry. “The panel made a finding which is prima facie evidence that suggests a further inquiry should happen. That is where parliament stepped in and voted against this,” he said. Hart said courts were reluctant to interfere in parliamentary processes. “Courts don’t like to interfere because of the principle of separation of powers and because parliament did not violate the Constitution. Unless the court comes up and says: ‘What you guys did was unconstitutional or irrational.” The central question, he said, was whether parliament met its constitutional duty. “Was the decision rational? You need to now check whether this is consistent with their constitutional duty that they owe to South Africans and not to the president.” He said that blocking further inquiry raised concerns. “Why would we block a further investigation that could ex