MK Party parliamentary leader John Hlophe has insisted that President Cyril Ramaphosa must personally testify before Parliament’s impeachment committee, arguing that the head of state should not be allowed to rely on legal representatives during the proceedings.
Hlophe made the remarks on Wednesday as the committee met to consider its draft terms of reference and the appointment of an evidence leader. The discussions come ahead of a Western Cape High Court judgment on Friday in an application seeking to halt the impeachment process pending a review of the Independent Panel’s report.
The meeting also exposed sharp differences among committee members over whether Ramaphosa can be compelled to testify and what legal consequences could follow if he declines.
MK Party Says Ramaphosa Must Testify At Impeachment Inquiry
Hlophe argued that the impeachment inquiry required direct testimony from the President, saying the committee was dealing with an adult who had first-hand knowledge of the issues before it.
“He does not have a choice and I am glad there seems to be consensus that evidence must be given by the president, not through an intermediary or a representative.
“If he chooses not to give evidence, the law will apply its course.”
Hlophe said the committee should hear from Ramaphosa before calling other witnesses, arguing that this would help define which issues remained in dispute.
“It does not help for us to call several witnesses to come testify in respect of which that is not in dispute at all. The moment the president has given evidence, we will in effect know what it is to be covered here, whether there is a case for the president to answer, and the sequence of witnesses will flow from there.”
He added that the impeachment proceedings were not criminal in nature.
“This is akin to a civil process where proof is on the preponderance of probabilities.”
Committee Members Differ Over Ramaphosa’s Right To Remain Silent
Patriotic Alliance MP Marlon Daniels disagreed with Hlophe’s interpretation, arguing that Ramaphosa could not be forced to testify.
“Non testimony should not have an adverse inference. It cannot be waived against the president when we consider his rights and duty.”
Daniels also maintained that the President should only be expected to respond to properly presented evidence before the committee.
“He is not to answer allegations, a version, or proposition not placed before the committee.”
ANC MP Faith Muthambi supported obtaining legal advice on whether Ramaphosa could choose not to testify.
“That will provide a balance and clarity on the constitutional right to remain silent,” she said.
Muthambi also questioned what legal standard should be applied during the impeachment inquiry.
“The question that arises is which standard is to be used to determine serious violation of the Constitution, and the Constitution at the same time does not define its actual threshold. It will be important to seek legal opinion on that.”
Legal Opinion Sought As Impeachment Committee Continues Preparations
ACDP MP Steve Swart said the committee was dealing with an unprecedented constitutional process and supported compelling Ramaphosa to testify.
“While we draw from criminal and civil law, this is a constitutional accountability mechanism, where we apply inquisitorial nature to determine on an objective legal basis whether we are dealing with a delinquent president at the end of the day.
[Fikile Mbalula Tells Khampepe Commission He Had No Role In TRC Cases]
“We would seriously argue that there should be compulsion for the president to give evidence or, at the very least, should he elect not to give evidence, a negative inference should be drawn.”
ActionSA MP Lerato Ngobeni also supported drawing an adverse inference if Ramaphosa declined to testify, while ATM leader Vuyo Zungula described the President’s testimony as essential to the inquiry.
“We can’t have an inquiry and not have him testify. That is an integral part of impeachment,” Zungula said.
SEE TODAY'S TOP HEADLINES ACROSS LEADING PUBLICATIONS
Committee chairperson Makhashule Gana said political parties had until Friday to engage on areas of disagreement contained in the 144-page draft terms of reference before the committee reconvenes next week.
He added that the three-member Independent Panel would be invited to present its report and confirmed that Parliament’s legal services would provide an opinion on the issues raised, including whether Ramaphosa could decline to testify and what options would be available to the committee if he did so.
