Simon Nare
Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee has rejected draft wording that appeared to allow President Cyril Ramaphosa’s evidence on the Phala Phala scandal to be presented by a legal representative instead of by the President himself.
Committee members met on Wednesday to consider and deliberate on the draft terms of reference and discuss the process to appoint evidence leaders to lead witnesses in the inquiry into Ramaphosa’s handling of the theft of foreign currency from his private Phala Phala farm.
The concern centred on Rule 16.10 of the draft rules, which states: “If the president elects to testify and there is a president’s representative, the president may elect that their evidence is presented by the president’s representative.”
Several MPs said the wording should be amended or tightened because it appeared to give Ramaphosa leeway not to attend the inquiry personally, despite being the subject of the proceedings.
They argued that while Ramaphosa was entitled to legal representation, his lawyers could not testify or answer questions on his behalf on matters that were within his personal knowledge.
The committee is considering its terms of reference after the Constitutional Court revived the impeachment process regarding the 2020 theft of US dollars from the farm.
Ramaphosa has denied wrongdoing and has brought an urgent application in the Western Cape High Court to interdict the committee, which the committee is opposing.
African Transformation Movement leader Vuyolwethu Zungula said if Ramaphosa elected not to cooperate with the committee and chose not to take part, the committee would have no choice but to summon him.
“If he is summoned and he refuses to come for whatever reason, we must make an inference because he has a legal obligation to account,” he said.
Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema submitted that it could not be acceptable for the President not to attend, as he was the “main man” of the inquiry.
Malema said Ramaphosa could bring his legal team and be allowed to consult with them, but would have to give testimony personally.
He also rejected the possibility of Ramaphosa giving evidence virtually, insisting that the President would have to attend the inquiry in person and face the committee.
“We don’t hold the president accountable through a legal representative because we have not voted a legal representative and there is no evidence that is going on hybrid or virtually. Every evidence is going to be presented in a physical meeting,” he said.
uMkhonto weSizwe Party parliamentary leader Dr John Hlophe echoed Malema’s position, saying Ramaphosa had no option but to come and testify and tell the nation what happened at the farm.
“The president has given public statements and public accounts relating to the whole incident of Phala Phala. Some of the questions we are going to ask here, are peculiarly within the knowledge of the president. Nobody else can give answers thereto.
“And we are entitled as this committee to test the version that he has already given publicly against the evidence that he will give here and the issues of credibility may come in,” he said.
Hlophe said if there was a case for Ramaphosa to answer and he elected not to testify, an adverse inference could be drawn against him in law. He said the President could therefore not have a legal representative testifying on his behalf.
Committee chairperson Makashule Gana gave political parties until 10 July to make written submissions on the draft terms of reference.
On the appointment of evidence leaders, the committee resolved to start the process of identifying and recommending an evidence leader who will guide the presentation of evidence before the committee.
Members also agreed that evidence leaders would not be subjected to vetting.
INSIDE POLITICS
