THE Phala Phala impeachment committee wants President Cyril Ramaphosa to appear in person to answer questions.
The Section 89 Enquiry into the removal of Ramaphosa met on Wednesday, 24 June to establish process to select evidence leaders and assistance and to finalise its terms of reference.
The committee has acknowledged that individuals appointed as evidence leaders must be appropriately qualified senior legal practitioners, given the complexity, sensitivity, and legal weight of impeachment proceedings.
Legal advisors to the committee have recommended that the process proceed unless the report of the independent panel led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo is set aside, a signal that the inquiry is not expected to stall waiting for procedural challenges.
HLOPHE: SPEAKER “DERELICTED HER DUTY”
MK party Parliamentary leader Judge John Hlophe delivered one of the most pointed criticisms of the proceedings so far, accusing National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza of fundamentally misconstruing her role in the matter.
“It is very clear to us that the Speaker totally misconstrued her role in this matter. The real question going forward is that we need to take a decision as this committee as to what exactly in the light of the fact that the Speaker misconstrued her role. We must agree what we are to do about the Speaker who has derelicted her duty to uphold the Constitution and protect Parliament. She clearly lacks objectivity,” said Hlophe.
His comments add another layer of controversy to an already fractious process, with the Speaker’s decisions increasingly becoming a point of contention for committee members.
POLITICAL PARTIES UNITE IN DEMAND FOR RAMAPHOSA’S APPEARANCE
Across party lines, there was a unified call for the President to face the committee personally.
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema said ANC members were living in delusion if they believed they could shield Ramaphosa from accountability. He said the Speaker acted wrongly by opposing the report, and that Parliament requires permanent interaction between parties to ensure oversight, cooperation, and accountability.
“Wake up to reality. Wake up and smell the coffee,” Malema told the committee.
He was emphatic that Ramaphosa would have to personally come to Parliament to answer questions on Phala Phala before the committee.
Africa Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyo Zungula added his voice to the demand, calling for the terms of reference for the impeachment committee to be clearly defined and for the president to be formally summoned to testify.
ActionSA MP Lerato Ngobeni urged the committee to act on behalf of the South African people, while leaving the door open for Ramaphosa to clear his name.
“We must ensure that the President can clear his name, if that is what his wish has been. He has always said he has done nothing wrong,” she said.
For his part, Hlophe said in his view, Ramaphosa has no option but to come before the committee and tell the nation what happened in Phala Phala.
The Section 89 Enquiry, triggered by an independent panel report into allegations arising from the Phala Phala theft scandal, is one of the most consequential parliamentary processes Mzansi has faced in its democratic history.
