ActionSA Rejects Ramaphosa’s Attempt to Litigate His Way Out of Accountability
Lerato Ngobeni MP
ActionSA Parliamentary Chief Whip
ActionSA rejects President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent application to interdict Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee from commencing its work. The Constitutional Court – South Africa’s Apex Court – has already ruled that Parliament acted unlawfully in halting the original impeachment process and cannot now be asked to abandon its constitutional obligations simply because the President wishes to avoid scrutiny.
The institution of legal proceedings does not suspend Parliament’s duty to hold the President accountable.
Ramaphosa argues that an impeachment inquiry may cause him irreparable reputational harm. Yet the purpose of the Section 89 process is not to protect the reputation of the President, but to protect the integrity of the Constitution, the Presidency and Parliament itself. South Africans have waited more than six years for full accountability in relation to the Phala Phala matter.
ActionSA remains firmly of the view that the Section 89 Committee must proceed with its work unless and until a competent court orders otherwise. Parliament’s constitutional responsibilities cannot be indefinitely suspended through litigation. The Committee exists precisely to establish the facts, consider the evidence and determine whether the President’s conduct meets the threshold contemplated in Section 89 of the Constitution.
We therefore implore all parties represented in Parliament, including those participating in the Government of National Unity, to defend Parliament’s constitutional independence and reject any attempt to shield the President from accountability. We further urge the Chairperson of the Section 89 Committee, Makashule Gana MP, to ensure that the Committee’s work proceeds without fear, favour or prejudice, and that Parliament does not once again find itself on the wrong side of the Constitution.
South Africans deserve transparency, honesty and equal application of the law. No person, including a sitting President of the Republic, is above constitutional scrutiny.
ActionSA Rejects Ramaphosa’s Attempt to Litigate His Way Out of Accountability
ActionSA rejects President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent application to interdict Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee from commencing its work. The Constitutional Court – South Africa’s Apex Court – has already ruled that Parliament acted unlawfully in halting the original impeachment process and cannot now be asked to abandon its constitutional obligations simply because the President wishes to avoid scrutiny.
The institution of legal proceedings does not suspend Parliament’s duty to hold the President accountable.
Ramaphosa argues that an impeachment inquiry may cause him irreparable reputational harm. Yet the purpose of the Section 89 process is not to protect the reputation of the President, but to protect the integrity of the Constitution, the Presidency and Parliament itself. South Africans have waited more than six years for full accountability in relation to the Phala Phala matter.
ActionSA remains firmly of the view that the Section 89 Committee must proceed with its work unless and until a competent court orders otherwise. Parliament’s constitutional responsibilities cannot be indefinitely suspended through litigation. The Committee exists precisely to establish the facts, consider the evidence and determine whether the President’s conduct meets the threshold contemplated in Section 89 of the Constitution.
We therefore implore all parties represented in Parliament, including those participating in the Government of National Unity, to defend Parliament’s constitutional independence and reject any attempt to shield the President from accountability. We further urge the Chairperson of the Section 89 Committee, Makashule Gana MP, to ensure that the Committee’s work proceeds without fear, favour or prejudice, and that Parliament does not once again find itself on the wrong side of the Constitution.
South Africans deserve transparency, honesty and equal application of the law. No person, including a sitting President of the Republic, is above constitutional scrutiny.