Chief Justice Mandisa Maya has reserved judgement in a court application brought by the EFF and ATM, calling for the court to overrule the decision by the National Assembly to not to institute an impeachment inquiry against President Cyril Ramaphosa on the Phala Phala Farm scandal.
Not enough evidence
Ramaphosa’s legal team has asserted that the independent panel should have assessed whether there was enough evidence to warrant an impeachment investigation rather than only looking for prima facie evidence.
Peter Harris, Ramaphosa’s lawyer, asserted that it is illogical to ask the panel to only determine if there is a prima facie case against the president. This as the complaint cannot proceed under rules 129A and 129B without establishing such a case.
He further argued it would be more reasonable to ask the panel if there is sufficient evidence indicating that the president has committed serious misconduct.
Evidence possibly unlawfully obtained
Harris told the apex court that the admissibility and legality of the evidence brought to the independent panel were possibly unlawfully obtained.
He said it was unclear as to who interviewed the suspects. And it was not clear how the said Namibian report and audio recording were obtained by the panel.
“The starting point is that the evidence must qualify as admissible, reliable, and credible. In situations like this, there is every incentive to hoodwink decision-makers to make rushed decisions. Decisions that are based on half-truths. This is what appears to have happened,” said Harris.
The ANC argues that the EFF has no proof of its allegations. No proof that members of the organisation were coerced to vote against the impeachment of Ramaphosa. The votes regarding the Phala Phala matter.
This comes after ConCourt heard arguments from the EFF earlier. The party claimed that the ANC MPs protected Ramaphosa from impeachment through their votes. The said MPs were holding the majority at the time.
EFF says Gwede Mantashe dictated to the ANC MPs
They argued that this was dictated by ANC chairperson Gwede Mantashe.
Tembeka Ngcukaitobi is the lawyer representing the ANC. He argued the red berets could not provide proof that ANC MPs were forced to vote against the impeachment.
Ngcukaitobi asserted that the EFF did not have details of internal meetings and discussions of the ANC. But it continued to argue that the members abused their power of position to shield Ramaphosa from possible impeachment.
Not against the Constitution
Ngcukaitobi argued that the EFF also expects that its members vote in line with an agreed-upon party position. Failure to do so may lead to party discipline. He said this was not against the Constitution.
Ngcukaitobi added that the ANC thought the decision through. That a president voted in by the people would need to put his responsibilities aside to attend to the matter.
He said they had considered the constitutional obligation to hold the president to account. As such, he believes that Ramaphosa could not be subjected to impeachment on a “whim”.
In the closing argument, Anton Katz, an ATM lawyer, focused on the respondents’ arguments. He said they were presented as if the decision made in December 2022 was an impeachment decision. But it was a decision on whether there should be a trial, he said.
