The National Assembly has adopted amended rules that will govern the work of the 31-member impeachment committee investigating allegations against President Cyril Ramaphosa over the 2020 theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala game farm.

The move paves the way for the committee to begin its work, despite Ramaphosa’s urgent court bid to halt the process pending a review of an independent Section 89 panel report that found he may have breached the constitution.

In May, the Constitutional Court ruled that Parliament’s rules on the impeachment of a president were invalid.

Parliament rules

The ANC’s Doris Mpapane, who is also the chairperson of the subcommittee on the review of rules, reflected on this.

“Amending parliament’s rules can be a challenging task because all political parties have their own interests and views. It is therefore important that the Rules Committee carefully consider the details of any amendments to ensure they can be commonly understood and applied.”

MK attack

The MK party’s Mzwanele Manyi launched an attack on the impeachment committee.

“The Impeachment Committee has still commenced implementation of the Constitutional Court order. It has only met to elect a chairperson and to consider its constitution at the misguided interject application. It has a planned meeting still pending to discuss the appointment of the evidence leader. Two meetings, none of them, none of them an inquiry, there is no sense of urgency.”

Clarity

However, Impeachment Committee Chairperson, Rise Mzanzi’s Makashule Gana clarified the matter.

“I will resist the temptation to respond to what Honourable Manyi said. I think he’s yearning to be part of the committee. I can talk to the leader of the opposition if he wants to be in the committee. Those that are in the committee knows the way that’s happening, so we’ll not respond to other than what’s being said today. So, the work is continuing, chairperson, the work of the committee is continuing.”

‘Fit and proper MPs

The EFF’s Hlengiwe Mkhaliphi questioned a proposal by the DA, calling for members of an impeachment committee to be fit and proper.

“While the EFF supports most of the amendments before this house, there are certain proposals that we reject outright. The first one is the DA proposal to introduce a so-called fit and proper requirement for members serving on the impeachment committee through an amendment to Rule 129 K.

“The DA wants Parliaments to adopt a standard that they themselves cannot define. They speak of fit and proper, yet cannot explain what it means,” said Mkhaliphi.

Proposal

The IFP’s Nhlanhla Hadebe explained why the proposal needs to be handled with caution.

“A standard of fit and proper for only members of the impeachment committee should be cautiously approached. Instead, the IFP holds that all members of the House should be abstaining citizens.”

DA firm on ‘fit and proper’

However, the DA’s Glynnis Breytenbach defended the party’s proposal to have “fit and proper” MPs serve on the impeachment committee.

“The Democratic Alliance’s proposal on the inclusion of a fit and proper requirement for members to serve on an impeachment committee was rejected. An impeachment investigation is a serious matter, and therefore requires equally serious consideration on who to participate in it.

“This consideration necessitates a higher standard for members who serve on the committee, as we are entrusted by the citizens of South Africa to serve them with integrity and uncompromised ethical principles,” Breytenbach said.

Nkandla

ActionSA chief whip Lerato Ngobeni said South Africans should question National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza’s decision not to oppose Ramaphosa’s application for an interdict.

“South Africans have seen what happens when Parliament places political convenience ahead of constitutional duty. Too often, accountability has been delayed, diluted, or frustrated when it mattered most.

“The lessons of Nkandla remain impossible to ignore. The fact that the constitutional court had to remind Parliament of its constitutional obligations should remain a source of embarrassment for this institution,” Ngobeni said.

Didiza

Didiza said on Friday that she won’t oppose Ramaphosa’s attempt to interdict the impeachment committee from proceedings, with opposition parties slamming her decision.

Her decision follows the impeachment committee’s decision to oppose Ramaphosa’s application.

Party loyalty

Bosa’s Nobuntu-Hlazo Webster said that for too long, South Africans have watched Parliament place party loyalty ahead of constitutional duty and of the rights and interests of South Africans.

“That has damaged public trust in this institution. As Bosa, we therefore support strengthening the section 89 process because accountability should never depend on who occupies the Union Buildings or which party commands a majority in the house.

“We have long argued that parliament must never become a shield for the executive and that it must remain the independent guardian of the constitution,” said Webster.

Ramaphosa can’t escape’

ATM leader Vuyo Zungula said the committee has recognised that a president cannot “escape accountability” simply because unlawful conduct is executed through another person,” the SABC reported

“When a president instructs, authorises, or directs conduct that amounts to a serious violation of the constitutional law, the responsibility still remains with the president.”

Terms of reference

The impeachment committee is expected to meet on Wednesday to outline its terms of reference and deal with the appointment of evidence leaders.

The committee was established after the Constitutional Court’s 8 May judgment set aside the National Assembly’s 2022 decision not to proceed with the impeachment process and referred the Independent Panel’s report to an Impeachment Committee for consideration.

Legal battle

Ramaphosa wants the report’s recommendations declared unlawful and set aside, challenging the panel’s findings that there was prima facie evidence of a serious violation of the constitution and law, as well as serious misconduct.

He approached the Western Cape High Court, seeking an urgent interdict while he challenges the Section 89 Independent Panel’s report, seeking to prevent the start of an impeachment inquiry until his separate review application against the report has been finalised.

The president decided to revive a judicial review of the Section 89 Independent Panel Report after the Constitutional Court sent the report on the Phala Phala scandal back to parliament last month, paving the way for an impeachment process against Ramaphosa to proceed.