President Cyril Ramaphosa announced on Monday night his intention to take the Section 89 Independent Panel report on legal review. The panel's findings relate to the handling of a 2020 burglary at his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo. This development follows a Constitutional Court ruling that Parliament acted unlawfully, irrationally, and unconstitutionally by voting in December 2022 to reject the same panel report. The court ordered the Section 89 Independent Panel report to be immediately referred to an Impeachment Committee. Earlier on Monday, Parliament Speaker Thoko Didiza announced six key procedural steps to enforce the Constitutional Court's ruling, setting the stage for a renewed impeachment process.
President's Legal Challenge
President Cyril Ramaphosa stated he was advised by his legal team that the panel report could be reviewed by a court of law. He cited several grounds for this review, including what he described as the panel's misconception of its mandate, grave errors of law, and unfounded conclusions of fact. Ramaphosa maintained that he had not stolen public money, committed any crime, or violated his oath of office. He emphasized his belief in the rule of law and his commitment to upholding the Constitution. According to legal expert Advocate Zwelethu Mighty Madasa, this legal challenge will suspend the Speaker's referral of the report to the Impeachment Committee, pending the review's outcome. This suspension would effectively pause parliamentary proceedings related to the report. Ramaphosa's announcement preceded an expected meeting of the ANC’s National Executive Committee, where the implications of the court ruling and his subsequent legal action were likely to be discussed.
Parliamentary and Court Mandate
The Constitutional Court determined that Parliament's previous handling of the Section 89 Independent Panel report failed the constitutional test due to a material error of law. The court found that Parliament's decision to reject the report in December 2022 was flawed, necessitating a restart of the impeachment process. This ruling stemmed from a legal challenge initiated by opposition parties, specifically the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM), who sought to revive the impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa. Following the court's judgment, both the EFF and ATM publicly demanded the President's immediate resignation, intensifying political pressure. The panel report itself concerns a 2020 burglary at Ramaphosa's Phala Phala game farm, where over $500,000 in cash was reportedly stolen from a couch. The details surrounding the cash, its origin, and the handling of the incident have been central to the allegations against the President.
Divergent Reactions and Advice
Political analyst Kim Heller described President Ramaphosa’s speech as a "masterful delay and evasion tactic," adding, "He has weaponised the judicial system to cling to his political power." This perspective suggests that the legal review is a strategic move to prolong his tenure. The Democratic Alliance (DA) stated that Ramaphosa’s decision to take the Section 89 Panel report on review must not be used to delay the work of Parliament. DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis urged Ramaphosa to bring any review application with due haste and on an expedited basis, stressing the importance of resolving the matter swiftly. Mr. Hill-Lewis further noted, "Parliament must also now take urgent legal advice on the implications of the President’s incoming review, including whether it affects the establishment and work of the impeachment committee, or whether the committee may proceed while the review is underway." Legal expert Advocate Zwelethu Mighty Madasa affirmed Ramaphosa's right to ask the court to review the panel’s findings, noting the constitutional avenues available to the President. Conversely, Professor Andre Thomashausen said Ramaphosa showed "great statesmanship in resisting the temptation to withdraw into the comforts of early retirement," suggesting a different interpretation of the President's actions.
