The EFF has applied for an order to be admitted as an intervening party in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Constitutional Court application to review and set aside the Section 89 report into his Phala Phala farm theft case.
This after Ramaphosa’s legal team rejected the red beret’s request to be included as the sixth respondent in the matter.
In his application, Ramaphosa has cited Section 89 panellists, retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, retired judge Thokozile Masipa and advocate Mahlape Sello as the first, second and third respondents respectively.
He has also cited the Speaker of the National Assembly Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula and ATM leader Vuyolwethu Zungula as the fourth and fifth respondents respectively.
Zungula is cited in the papers because he proposed the motion, which triggered parliament to appoint the panellists.
After investigations, the panellists produced a report, which states that there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated the constitution, and may have a case to answer.
The report, which has the potential to force parliament to launch an impeachment process against Ramaphosa, was, however, not adopted, after ANC MPs voted against it at the behest of their political principals at Luthuli House.
In the papers, which we have seen, the EFF said they want a court order, which will grant them leave to intervene as the sixth respondents in the proceedings.
The order should also grant them permission to present written and oral submissions, and any party opposing the application should pay their costs.
In his affidavit, EFF Deputy President Floyd Shivambu, said the EFF has not been cited by Ramaphosa as one of the respondents in the case even though they have a manifest, clear and direct substantial interest in the relief sought by him.
Shivambu said before they filed the application, the legal team of their organisation wrote a letter to Ramaphosa’s attorneys, stating the reasons why they ought to be joined to these proceedings.
However, Ramaphosa’s lawyers, reads Shivambu’s affidavit, rejected their request, saying the EFF did not have material legal interest which entitles them to be party in the application. Ramaphosa’s lawyers, said the EFF, also stated that the application for relief was against the Section 89 panel and parliament only, and not against any other party.
“It is a response which is mistaken as a matter of fact and law, because through its members in the National Assembly, the EFF has a pre-eminent constitutional duty to hold the president and other members of the national executive accountable.
“The report, which the president seeks to review and set aside, was the first constitutional step to hold the president accountable based on well publicised allegations of a serious breach of the constitution, a series of violations of the law and unethical conduct arising from the so-called Phala Phala scandal,” reads the affidavit.
The relief sought by Ramaphosa, said Shivambu, was an attempt by him to evade the accountability they are entitled to enforce as the third opposition party in South Africa.
“Thus far, the president has refused to properly and fully account for his conduct on the Phala Phala saga. He has claimed that the allegations relating to the Phala Phala saga are still under investigation by law enforcement agents and the Public Protector, and those investigations have not been completed, and that based on the legal advice he received, he was not willing to publicly and fully respond to allegations against him,” reads the affidavit.
