‘Convicted politicians’ cannot tell Ramaphosa to resign, Malatji says
Why this matters: an international story with cross-border implications worth tracking.
Convicted individuals such as Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema and former president Jacob Zuma cannot tell President Cyril Ramaphosa to resign, ANC Youth League president Collen Malatji says. “There is no way that political parties led by convicted individuals and people who have been criminally charged can tell us that a president who is not a criminal is a criminal,” Malatji told a briefing on Tuesday. “You go to the MK [u Mkhonto we Sizwe] Party, which is led by a bandit, and you go to the EFF, which is led by a bandit called Julius, to tell us that a president who is not a bandit is a bandit.” Malatji was responding to growing political pressure on Ramaphosa to resign after a Constitutional Court ruling related to the Phala Phala matter found that parliament had acted irrationally when it voted against referring the issue to an impeachment committee. In a national address on Monday, Ramaphosa said he would not resign despite the ruling and the initiation of parliamentary steps towards a possible impeachment inquiry, insisting that nothing in the judgment required him to step down. “I therefore respectfully want to make it clear that I will not resign,” he said. Ramaphosa said the ruling had generated “much commentary, debate and speculation” and had contributed to “concern and uncertainty in the country over the last few days”. The judgment has triggered renewed calls for his resignation from several political parties, including the EFF, uMkhonto weSizwe Party and the African Transformation Movement, among others. In 2022, an independent panel chaired by retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa might have committed serious constitutional violations linked to the Phala Phala scandal. The Constitutional Court later ruled that the National Assembly’s 214–148 vote rejecting the panel’s findings was irrational and inconsistent with the Constitution. The apex court ordered that the matter be referred back to parl