All eyes on ConCourt’s Phala Phala ruling

With all eyes on Friday’s Constitutional Court judgment on the Phala Phala matter, the Presidency has declined to indicate what President Cyril Ramaphosa’s next course of action would be should the apex court rule against him. The Constitutional Court is expected to deliver judgment in an application brought by the EFF, which is seeking an order compelling Parliament to reconsider its decision not to initiate impeachment proceedings against Ramaphosa over the controversial Phala Phala farm scandal. The case stems from Parliament’s rejection of a Section 89 independent panel report that found there may have beenprima facieevidence that the president violated the Constitution and committed serious misconduct in relation to the 2020 theft of foreign currency from his Limpopo farm.

The EFF argues that Parliament failed in its constitutional obligations by voting against the establishment of an impeachment inquiry despite the panel’s findings. Parliament, however, has maintained that lawmakers acted within the bounds of the law and exercised their democratic discretion through a parliamentary vote. Speaking ahead of the ruling, presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the Presidency would not speculate on possible outcomes before the court handed down its decision.

It will be really difficult to say if this happens, then this is what will happen, because we don’t know what is going to happen. So, let’s rather avoid engaging in a speculative discussion. Let’s wait for the judgment.

[paywall]

Let’s see what the judgment says, and take it from there. Magwenya reiterated Ramaphosa’s long-standing position that the courts must be respected and allowed to perform their constitutional role without interference. We are awaiting the judgment, like you are, and everybody else. “You’ve heard the president several times being consistent in his respect for due process, in his respect for the judiciary, and in his support and commitment to respecting the role of the courts in resolving matters of dispute, which is well expressed within our constitutional framework,” he said.

[/paywall]