JOHANNESBURG - Good Governance Africa’s Head of Liaison and Advocacy, Karam Singh, has questioned the timing of President Cyril Ramaphosa's decision to lodge a formal application in the Western Cape High Court to review the Phala Phala Independent Panel report.
Singh said that had the President challenged the report earlier, the matter could have been closer to resolution.
READ | Ramaphosa lodges application to challenge Phala Phala report
But even then, he notes that it is within Ramaphosa's rights in terms of the Constitution to challenge that report.
He said this is an unfolding matter.
"It's kind of a process of continuing to kick the can down the road as opposed to a kind of substantive interrogation by the legislature exercising its oversight function with regard to whether there was any serious wrongdoing as regard to what happened uh with the facts around the Phala Phala matter."
In the 63-page application lodged on Tuesday, Ramaphosa asked the court to review and set aside the report, particularly its recommendation in paragraph 264.
In late 2022, an independent panel appointed by the National Assembly – led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo concluded in paragraph 264 that the information presented disclosed prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have: committed a serious violation of the Constitution and exposed himself to a conflict of interest between his official duties and private business.
However, in the court papers, Ramaphosa argues the independent panel misunderstood its mandate in at least four respects and misconstrued what it was supposed to conduct.
This move comes a day after Parliament’s 31-member impeachment committee into the Phala Phala was announced.
READ | Phala Phala scandal | These are the MPs serving on the impeachment committee
The committee includes high-profile and outspoken MPs such as Julius Malema, John Hlophe, Fadiel Adams, Vuyolwethu Zungula and Faith Muthambi.
Singh said Hlophe, being one to serve on the committee, did spark their attention.
Hlophe was the first judge to be impeached in 2024.
"Last year, the National Assembly had designated Honorable Hlophe to the Judicial Services Commission. That was deemed to be unconstitutional and invalid.
"This was due to the fact that Hlophe had been impeached when he was Judge President sitting on the bench. So, the issue is then how similar is this committee to the Judicial Services Commission and would that ruling apply?
Singh argues in the same breath that this case may be different, also taking into account that much is in the realm of politics.
"There are going to be opponents of the President on this committee and there's nothing that disqualifies John Hlophe from being a Member of Parliament based upon our current rules," he added.