The African Movement Transformation (ATM) and the United Democratic Movement (UDM) are opposing President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal review of the independent Section 89 panel report.
This after the president took the matter to the Constitutional Court on Monday and said the panel misunderstood its mandate. Ramaphosa seeks to review and set aside the report, which found him guilty of misconduct amid his Phala Phala farm scandal.
The report found that the president may have violated multiple clauses in the constitution including the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, which governs the prevention of bribery and corruption, and section 96(2) of the constitution.
He was also found to have committed serious misconduct by conflicting his private life and his official responsibilities.
ATM leader Vuyo Zungula said Ramaphosa has no legal standing to take the report on review, noting that the president is misguided. UDM leader Bantu Holomisa is also not impressed with the president, saying he is using the court to delay his impeachment and removal from office.
“It is clear that the application is only a tactic by the president to delay his inevitable impeachment and removal from office due to multiple breaches of the constitution and allegedly criminal conduct until the ANC conference next week,” Holomisa said.
After ATM’s request to use secret ballot during voting in parliament next Tuesday was turned down, Holomisa called on Speaker of the National Assembly, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, to reconsider her decision.
In light of the Section 89 panel findings, the National Assembly announced last week that it will debate the matter and allow MPs to vote on the report and the impeachment of Ramaphosa.
However, hours before the MPs convened in parliament, Mapisa-Nqakula said using the secret ballot to vote will deprive South Africans a chance to identify the positions of their representatives “across party lines”.
She is also concerned that this may also lead to corruption.
“We also call on the speaker to reconsider her decision to disallow a secret ballot in line with what the Constitutional Court said in the case of UDM v the Speaker that members of parliament must be guided by their conscience and may sometimes have to be protected from retaliation by party bosses.
“Given the unlawful retaliation by president Ramaphosa when he suspended the public protector the day after she served him with 31 questions regarding Phala Phala, the speaker should have ordered a secret ballot.”
Meanwhile, the National Assembly sitting has been postponed to December 13 to allow MPs to make their way to a new venue where they will all fit for physical participation.
Also read: Mapisa-Nqakula shoots down ATM’s request for secret ballot
Postponement of debate offers Ramaphosa a short reprieve
To read more political news and views, click here.
Follow @SundayWorldZA on Twitter and @sundayworldza on Instagram, or like our Facebook Page, Sunday World, by clicking here for the latest breaking news in South Africa. To Subscribe to Sunday World, click here.
