ActionSA implores all ANC and Opposition MPs alike to vote in favour of initiating impeachment proceedings against President Ramaphosa. It is central to democratic accountability that Parliament forges ahead with a public and transparent impeachment inquiry in the interests of satisfying South Africans that their elected officials are seeking justice on their behalf against a President who has a serious case to answer for.
This comes after the Speaker of Parliament, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, convened a full, in-person sitting of the National Assembly (NA) this afternoon to consider the Section 89 Independent Panel investigation into the Phala Phala farmgate debacle. The report concluded that President Cyril Ramaphosa has a serious case to answer for relating to his involvement. Parliament now has a duty to proceed with the Section 89 impeachment process.
While we welcome the National Assembly being convened to do its work, we are concerned that this is a cynical ploy for the ANC to use its majority to close ranks and shield the President from accountability. There can be no doubt that an impeachment probe by Parliament is warranted given the serious allegations made against the President by a committee empanelled by Parliament itself. It would be manifestly irrational for Parliament to now ignore its findings.
There is cause for concern given that the ANC’s National Working Committee (NWC) issued to ANC MPs to vote to protect President Ramaphosa when the National Assembly considers the Phala Phala report.
This is not how accountability works and ANC MPs are dutybound to give effect to Section 55(2) of The Constitution which demands that Parliament exercise oversight over the Executive and hold it accountable. This instruction by the ANC NWC is a brazen attempt to circumvent that constitutional imperative and protect the President in a manner reminiscent of Nkandla.
The Section 89 concluded that there is prima facie evidence that the President may have committed:
- A serious violation of sections 96(2)(a).
- A serious violation of section 34(1) of PRECCA.
- A serious misconduct in that the President violated section 96(2)(b) by acting in a way that is inconsistent with his office.
- A serious misconduct in that the President violated section 96(2)(b) by exposing himself to a situation involving a conflict between his official responsibilities and his private business. of the Constitution.
How can any true South African vote not to explore impeachment against a President who is likely to have violated his own oath of office?
It must be repeated that South Africa, over the last decade, has had to come to terms with political leaders who are battling criminal charges and violations of the Constitution. This seems to preoccupy these leaders when the country is desperate for effective and ethical leadership.
History must not repeat itself in this regard and President Ramaphosa must be subjected to due process so that South Africans can satisfy themselves that justice is being served in this matter.
Phala Phala: ANC MPs Must Vote with Their Conscience and Avert Nkandla 2.0
ActionSA implores all ANC and Opposition MPs alike to vote in favour of initiating impeachment proceedings against President Ramaphosa. It is central to democratic accountability that Parliament forges ahead with a public and transparent impeachment inquiry in the interests of satisfying South Africans that their elected officials are seeking justice on their behalf against a President who has a serious case to answer for.
This comes after the Speaker of Parliament, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, convened a full, in-person sitting of the National Assembly (NA) this afternoon to consider the Section 89 Independent Panel investigation into the Phala Phala farmgate debacle. The report concluded that President Cyril Ramaphosa has a serious case to answer for relating to his involvement. Parliament now has a duty to proceed with the Section 89 impeachment process.
While we welcome the National Assembly being convened to do its work, we are concerned that this is a cynical ploy for the ANC to use its majority to close ranks and shield the President from accountability. There can be no doubt that an impeachment probe by Parliament is warranted given the serious allegations made against the President by a committee empanelled by Parliament itself. It would be manifestly irrational for Parliament to now ignore its findings.
There is cause for concern given that the ANC’s National Working Committee (NWC) issued to ANC MPs to vote to protect President Ramaphosa when the National Assembly considers the Phala Phala report.
This is not how accountability works and ANC MPs are dutybound to give effect to Section 55(2) of The Constitution which demands that Parliament exercise oversight over the Executive and hold it accountable. This instruction by the ANC NWC is a brazen attempt to circumvent that constitutional imperative and protect the President in a manner reminiscent of Nkandla.
The Section 89 concluded that there is prima facie evidence that the President may have committed:
How can any true South African vote not to explore impeachment against a President who is likely to have violated his own oath of office?
It must be repeated that South Africa, over the last decade, has had to come to terms with political leaders who are battling criminal charges and violations of the Constitution. This seems to preoccupy these leaders when the country is desperate for effective and ethical leadership.
History must not repeat itself in this regard and President Ramaphosa must be subjected to due process so that South Africans can satisfy themselves that justice is being served in this matter.