By Simon Nare
The parliamentary impeachment committee investigating President Cyril Ramaphosa’s handling of the theft of foreign currency at his Phala Phala farm failed to reach agreement on its terms of reference and the appointment of evidence leaders on Wednesday.
After hours of debate during a virtual meeting, committee members agreed they needed more time to negotiate outside the formal sitting before adopting the rules that will govern the inquiry.
The committee also resolved to reopen nominations for evidence leaders after only four of the nine shortlisted senior advocates confirmed their availability.
Those available are Advocates Pule Seleka, Ishmail Jamie, Vuyani Ngalwa and Kate Hofmeyer.
ALSO READ: Firearm case against UK triple-murder suspect Tshuma postponed to August
Some members objected to Ngalwa’s nomination, citing what they described as a perceived conflict of interest because of his public criticism of Ramaphosa on social media.
However, uMkhonto weSizwe Party MP and former Judge President John Hlophe warned that the committee should apply the same standard to Hofmeyer, noting that she had previously represented Ramaphosa in legal matters and could similarly be perceived as conflicted.
Committee chairperson Makashule Gana ruled that Ngalwa would remain on the shortlist. Members agreed to invite further nominations, with political parties given until 6pm on Friday to submit additional names.
On the proposed terms of reference, members broadly agreed that Ramaphosa should testify in person rather than be represented solely by his legal team.
Opposition members also rejected Gana’s proposal to seek further legal advice on the committee’s options should the president decline to testify. They argued that the Constitutional Court had already clarified the legal position, making further opinion unnecessary.
Hlophe said Ramaphosa should be the inquiry’s first witness because his testimony would determine the scope of the proceedings.
“That is going to tell us what it is that we are dealing with, what has been admitted, or what remains in dispute,” Hlophe said.
ALSO READ: Dozens of suburbs, hospitals and wastewater works hit as power outages spread across Joburg
“It doesn’t help for us to call several witnesses to come and testify or to give evidence in respect of which that is not in dispute at all.”
He said the committee could then determine whether further witnesses were required to corroborate or challenge the president’s version.
“If there is no need for any corroboration or evidence to dispute or gainsay that which has been said by the president, and we are all happy that he has given a satisfactory account, that’s the end of the inquiry,” Hlophe said.
He added that if Ramaphosa declined to testify but other witnesses gave evidence, “the law must take its course”, adding that “we cannot rewrite the law”.
ALSO READ: Inflation reaches 5% as fuel and transport costs surge
After hearing proposals from political parties on how the inquiry should proceed, members agreed to continue discussions before attempting to finalise the terms of reference.
The committee is expected to meet again on Friday, the same day the Western Cape High Court is due to rule on Ramaphosa’s application to halt the impeachment proceedings.
Ramaphosa wants the court to suspend the process pending his review of the independent panel’s report that found there was sufficient evidence for Parliament to consider an impeachment inquiry.
In his application, the president argues that the panel applied the wrong legal test by treating “sufficient evidence” as equivalent to a prima facie case rather than conducting a broader qualitative assessment of whether the evidence justified the “momentous step” of a public impeachment inquiry.
