The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has revealed that it will not participate in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s parliamentary session where he will be replying to the budget vote.
In the statement released on Wednesday, the party led by Julius Malema as its commander-in-chief stated that its Parliamentary Caucus would never be part of the debate.
“The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) Parliamentary Caucus will not participate in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s reply to the Budget Vote 1 debate on the Presidency, as we refuse to legitimise a constitutional delinquent who has violated his oath of office. “Ramaphosa, who is currently attempting to avoid accountability by asking the courts to review the Section 89 Independent Panel Report, which found prima facie evidence that he may have committed serious violations of the Constitution and the law, does not deserve an audience in parliament until impeachment proceedings against him are concluded,” said EFF spokesperson, Sinawo Thambo.
‘President’s plan all along’
The party added that it was very important for South Africans to remember that before the National Assembly could vote on the adoption of the Section 89 Independent Panel Report on December 13 2022, EFF said that, Ramaphosa approached the courts to review and set aside the report.
“This was a transparent effort to frustrate and delay constitutional accountability. After the ANC abused its parliamentary majority to shield Ramaphosa and reject the report, he withdrew his court application because he believed he had won and that the report had been buried.
“The moment he was protected by the ANC caucus, the review application in his view was no longer necessary. This means he felt no need to, on a moral and ethical basis, clear his name and was only interested in preventing any threat to his stay in office,” said Thambo.
He added that following the judgment that found Parliament’s rejection of the Section 89 Panel Report to be unconstitutional and irrational, Ramaphosa once again stood up in his attempt to evade accountability through litigation.
‘Abuse of state resources’
“Rather than subjecting himself to the constitutional process prescribed by law, he has launched yet another review application in an attempt to subvert the impeachment committee and frustrate the implementation of the court judgment. Millions of dollars were concealed in furniture at the President’s private farm. Instead of submitting himself to scrutiny and accountability, Ramaphosa mobilised the resources of the state to protect himself and ensure that the full truth about Phala Phala never emerges,” said Thambo.
The EFF pointed out that if Ramaphosa was not guilty of anything, what is he trying to hide or afraid of.
“The conduct of Cyril Ramaphosa represents one of the greatest contradictions in South Africa’s constitutional democracy. He occupies the highest office in the land and is entrusted with defending the Constitution, yet he continuously seeks to undermine constitutional mechanisms whenever they threaten his personal political interests,” said Thambo.
‘Speaker shielding Ramaphosa’
The party also condemned the Speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza, saying that her conduct continues to demonstrate that her loyalty lies with the ANC and Ramaphosa rather than with Parliament and the Constitution.
“As the custodian of the Section 89 process, Speaker Didiza has a constitutional responsibility to defend the integrity of Parliament’s accountability mechanisms. Her reluctance to oppose Ramaphosa’s attempts to frustrate and delay the impeachment process is a clear indication that she is complicit in efforts to sabotage constitutional accountability. This should not surprise anyone. Thoko Didiza remains an ANC deployee whose primary responsibility is the protection of ANC political interests.
“Her conduct throughout this matter has confirmed that the ANC is prepared to subordinate constitutional obligations in the protection of Cyril Ramaphosa. Her predecessors, Baleka Mbete and Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula acted in the same manner during the Nkandla scandal and in the early stages of the Phala Phala saga respectively. Today, the same script is unfolding before our eyes,” said Thambo.
The party said that it rejected Budget Vote 1 during the Presidency debate because as the opposition, they came to the conclusion of rejecting Ramaphosa and everything his Presidency represents.
“The EFF will not provide political legitimacy to a Presidency that survives through court challenges, parliamentary manipulation and the abuse of state institutions to avoid accountability. We remain committed to ensuring that the truth about Phala Phala is fully exposed and that no individual, regardless of wealth, status or political office, is ever placed above the law,” he said.
- The EFF will boycott President Cyril Ramaphosa’s reply to the budget vote debate, refusing to legitimize his presidency due to alleged constitutional violations.
- EFF accuses Ramaphosa of using court challenges to evade accountability following the Section 89 Independent Panel Report, which found prima facie evidence of serious constitutional breaches.
- The party condemns Ramaphosa for abusing state resources to conceal millions of dollars in furniture on his private farm and obstruct impeachment processes.
- The EFF criticizes National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza for protecting Ramaphosa and undermining parliamentary accountability mechanisms.
- The EFF rejects the Budget Vote 1 debate on the Presidency, refusing political legitimacy to Ramaphosa’s presidency, and demands full exposure and accountability regarding the Phala Phala scandal.
In the statement released on Wednesday, the party led by Julius Malema as its commander-in-chief stated that its Parliamentary Caucus would never be part of the debate.
“
“
“
He added that following the judgment that found Parliament's rejection of the Section 89 Panel Report to be unconstitutional and irrational, Ramaphosa once again stood up in his attempt to evade accountability through litigation.
“
“
“As the custodian of the Section 89 process, Speaker Didiza has a constitutional responsibility to defend the integrity of Parliament's accountability mechanisms. Her reluctance to oppose Ramaphosa's attempts to frustrate and delay the impeachment process is a clear indication that she is complicit in efforts to sabotage constitutional accountability.
“Her conduct throughout this matter has confirmed that the ANC is prepared to subordinate constitutional obligations in the protection of Cyril Ramaphosa. Her predecessors, Baleka
“
