PHUTI MOSOMANE
THE Constitutional Court has dismissed an application by President Cyril Ramaphosa to have direct access to challenge the validity of Section 89 Independent Panel’s report.
“The Constitutional Court has considered the application brought by way of exclusive jurisdiction or, alternatively, by way of direct access (main application) and the application to intervene,” according to the order issued on Wednesday.
The apex court said that no case has been made out for exclusive jurisdiction or direct access and the main application must be dismissed.
“Consequently, the application to intervene falls to be dismissed. The court has decided not to award costs,” judgement reads.
Earlier, Ramaphosa argued that the panel went beyond its scope when looking at whether he had a case to answer related to the robbery at the farm.
He also asked the court to declare that any steps taken by Parliament on the back of the release of the report to be declared unlawful and invalid.
Last year, retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo led the panel, which was appointed by Speaker of the National Assembly, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, to recommend whether or not to initiate a process to impeach Ramaphosa after allegations that he concealed a burglary at his farm.
The panel concluded its work and submitted a report on November 30th.
The Phala Phala report concluded that Ramaphosa has an impeachable case to answer.
The Section 89 Independent Panel report also found that Ramaphosa may have committed a serious violation of anti-corruption laws and the Constitution.
“Why was the house breaking and theft not reported in terms of section 34 (1) of PRECCA (Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act) or to any other police officer for investigation,” the panel asked.
“Why did the South Africa police request the Namibian police requested to handle the matter with “with discretion” … The President abused his position as Head of State to have the matter investigated and seek the assistance of the Namibian President to apprehend a suspect.”
The report concluded: “In light of all the information placed before the Panel, we conclude that this information discloses, prima facie, that the President may have committed: 264.1. A serious violation of sections 96(2)(a). 264.2. A serious violation of section 34(1) of PRECCA. 264.3. A serious misconduct in that the President violated section 96(2)(b) by acting in a way that is inconsistent with his office. 264.4. A serious misconduct in that the President violated section 96(2)(b) by exposing himself to a situation involving a conflict between his official responsibilities and his private business of the Constitution.”
INSIDE POLITICS
