Cape Town - President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal challenge of the Section 89 report, which found that he had a prima facie case to answer on the Phala Phala scandal, never had any merit and was launched to mislead Parliament into believing that the matter was “before the courts”.
This was the view of UDM leader Bantu Holomisa after Ramaphosa’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya confirmed that the president would no longer pursue court action against the report.
He noted the decision by the Constitutional Court in March dismissing Ramaphosa’s application to review and set aside the report on the grounds that no case had been made for exclusive jurisdiction.
“The president respects the ruling of the Constitutional Court. The President has been advised, which he accepted, that the panel report and all issues associated with it, have become moot and are of no practical or legal effect,” he said.
Magwenya also said the National Assembly had in December decided to reject the motion to refer the panel’s report to an impeachment committee.
The ANC had used its majority to shoot down the adoption of the damning report, saying Ramaphosa had taken it to court.
The Section 89 independent panel had in its report concluded that the information placed before it disclosed, prima facie, that Ramaphosa may have committed serious violation of the law and the constitution.
But Magwenya maintained that while that decision remains valid, it carried “no weight in law.”
“President Ramaphosa reserves his right to bring such (review) proceedings in due course should circumstances change.
“The president maintains his position set out in his founding affidavit before the Constitutional Court that the panel’s report is reviewable in law on several grounds, including the misconception of its mandate, grave errors of law and unfounded conclusions of fact,” he said.
Holomisa described Ramaphosa’s legal challenges as a blatant abuse of the court process to achieve ulterior motives.
“The report now stands as a valid document with a finding by independent and very senior legal experts that the president has a case to answer for the serious criminal offence of breaching Section 34 of Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.”
Holomisa called on National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) head, Advocate Shamila Batohi, to charge Ramaphosa.
“Given the seriousness of the matter and the NDPP’s (national director of public prosecutions) failure to act thus far, she is given until 1 June 2023 to charge Mr Ramaphosa failing which the appropriate court will be approached on an urgent basis to compel her to do so,” he said, adding that the UDM will be consulting with its legal team even before the deadline.
African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyo Zungula was still in the process of legally challenging parliament's decision to reject the motion to have a secret ballot into the impeachment process against Ramaphosa last year.
"The report still stands. It has not been challenged and it makes it very clear that he had a case to answer. He violated the supreme law of the country, the only thing that brings us together is the constitution and we let it go.
South Africans, if they want to be taken seriously in their country, they need to understand they are dealing with a liar of a president. He lied to his own party saying the report can't be adopted by parliament because he was going to challenge it.
“Only to find he has no intention to challenge it in court. We have a rogue unethical president who even misleads his own party members. We are correct to say he has something to hide, who sticks R6 million in his farm and uses processes to avoid accountability".
Political analyst Professor Sipho Seepe said Ramaphosa never wanted to account on Phala Phala.
“He has been ducking and diving. He chose to hide behind due process knowing fully well that the people who were to investigate him were his appointees. He knew that their careers depended on doing him a favour,” Seepe said.
“This is the president who succeeded to avoid accountability. We must forego the idea that this is a president who believes in transparency. We must forgo the idea that this is a president that can take the country into confidence,” Seepe said, adding that the finding remained and required a party to take the matter to court.
Cape Times