Former ANC Members of Parliament Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma and Mervyn Dirks have welcomed the Constitutional Court’s decision clearing the way for President Cyril Ramaphosa to face a parliamentary impeachment inquiry over the Phala Phala scandal.
The ruling overturns the National Assembly’s 2022 decision to reject the findings of an independent Section 89 panel, which concluded there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have breached his constitutional obligations.
Dlamini-Zuma, Dirks, Supra Mahumapelo and former minister Mosebenzi Zwane were among the few ANC MPs who broke ranks in December 2022 and voted in favour of adopting the panel’s report.
The panel, chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, investigated the theft of about US$580,000 from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.
Its report found prima facie evidence suggesting the president may have violated his oath of office. It also noted allegations that the foreign currency kept at the farm had not been declared to tax authorities and that the theft was not reported to the relevant law enforcement agencies.
When the report was tabled before Parliament, the majority of ANC MPs voted to reject it, effectively preventing the establishment of an impeachment committee.
On Friday, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya ruled that the National Assembly acted unconstitutionally when it dismissed the panel’s findings.
Former ANC MPs Welcome Constitutional Court Victory
Dlamini-Zuma said she believed the judges had reached the correct conclusion.
“I am happy that they (judges) took the right decision,” said Dlamini-Zuma.
She noted that she stood by her decision to vote differently from most ANC MPs at the time.
Asked whether Ramaphosa should now appear before an impeachment committee, she said: “It is the Parliament’s prerogative, and I am not a parliamentarian.”
Dirks, who has since joined the uMkhonto weSizwe Party, said he was “over the moon” with the outcome.
“I was insulted, ridiculed, and called names, even though I knew I was doing the right thing at the time.
“As the governing party, we appointed a panel for this investigation, yet when they returned with findings, we rejected and did not accept the report. I knew it was not the right thing to do, that is why I voted for the report,” said Dirks.
He argued that Ramaphosa would struggle to survive an impeachment inquiry if MPs dealt with the evidence fairly.
“He will never survive if some of the MPs in the Impeachment Committee ask exactly the 31 questions that the former Public Protector (Busisiwe Mkhwebane) posed to him (Ramaphosa). He will never be able to answer them.
“The reason the Public Protector was quickly removed was because those 31 questions were so serious that if he answered any of them, he would have incriminated himself,” Dirks said.
Dirks also suggested that Parliament should include members of the legal profession, including a retired judge, in the process.
“They can appoint a retired judge to chair the committee and advocates to be evidence leaders because political parties always have their own interests,” he said.
Political Reactions To Ramaphosa Impeachment Decision
Mahumapelo, who remains an ANC MP and chairs Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation, declined to comment.
“No comment until the NEC sits and resolves,” he said.
Former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane said the ruling vindicated the questions she had previously put to Ramaphosa.
“The most important thing is that the president will appear before the Impeachment Committee, and he will have to present his side of the story and witnesses will be called.
“At the end of the day, this is about accountability,” said Mkhwebane.
She said the committee would provide Ramaphosa with an opportunity to explain why foreign currency was allegedly concealed in couches at his farm and why he instructed Major General Wally Rhoode to travel to Namibia to trace those suspected of stealing the money instead of reporting the matter to police.
“Whether or not he will be impeached is another issue, as this is about accountability and transparency,” Mkhwebane said.
EFF leader Julius Malema, whose party joined the African Transformation Movement in taking the matter to the Constitutional Court, called on Ramaphosa to step down and focus on preparing for the impeachment proceedings.
Legal Experts Explain What Happens Next In Parliament
Legal analyst Mpumelelo Zikalala said Ramaphosa’s resignation would likely bring the impeachment process to an end.
“the impeachment does not matter any more,” he said.
Zikalala noted that the Ngcobo panel did not make definitive findings of guilt, but instead concluded that there was sufficient evidence to warrant a fuller investigation.
“Ngcobo simply said ‘we agree that the allegations are there, but we cannot pronounce that indeed this person did this. So go and form another committee to be given enough resources’,” said Zikalala.
He said Parliament is now obliged to restart the impeachment process, including the formal submission of the complaint and the calling of witnesses with direct knowledge of the events.
[ANC Faces Tough Test In Ramaphosa Impeachment Inquiry After ConCourt Ruling]
Zikalala also pointed to the possibility that ongoing criminal proceedings could complicate testimony before Parliament.
“But the problem is that there is still a criminal matter under way of which there is a matter of sub judice. Parliament would say it has powers to call anyone to come, but once I am there, my response would say ‘I am still being prosecuted and I cannot talk about the matter’,” he said.
He added that Ramaphosa’s political opponents would view the Constitutional Court judgment as a significant victory.
