Phala Phala: Ramaphosa Awaits Court Ruling On Impeachment Report

Judgment has been reserved in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s application to overturn the Section 89 independent panel report on the Phala Phala scandal.

The Western Cape High Court heard final arguments on Friday, bringing the three-day hearing before a full bench to an end.

The bench comprises Judge President Nolwazi Mabindla-Boqwana, Judge Mark Sher and Judge Ncumisa Mayosi.

The application names nine respondents, including retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, who chaired the independent panel.

The panel found in November 2022 that there was sufficient evidence for Ramaphosa to face four proposed impeachment charges following the theft of about US$580,000 from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.

If the report remains in force, Parliament’s impeachment process against Ramaphosa could proceed.

MK Party Accuses Ramaphosa Of Delaying Process

Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, representing the MK Party, argued that Ramaphosa’s review application was an attempt to delay the impeachment process.

Mpofu said the Constitutional Court had anticipated that the panel report could become tied up in litigation and therefore ordered in May that it be sent directly to Parliament’s impeachment committee.

He argued that allowing Ramaphosa to challenge every stage of the process could result in prolonged court battles.

Mpofu maintained that the panel had not found Ramaphosa guilty of any wrongdoing, but had simply concluded that there was a case that warranted further consideration by the impeachment committee.

He also repeated the MK Party’s argument that the Western Cape High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Judges Question Mpofu

Judge President Mabindla-Boqwana questioned Mpofu about the panel’s acknowledgement that it had not received all available information and that some people with first-hand knowledge had not come forward.

She questioned how the panel could conclude that sufficient evidence existed despite acknowledging those limitations.

Mpofu argued that the constraints were imposed by Parliament and did not invalidate the panel’s findings.

Judge Sher also questioned whether the Constitutional Court’s May order effectively meant that the impeachment process had to proceed unless the panel report was set aside.

Mpofu agreed that the order had binding effect but argued that the rules still allowed Parliament to proceed even where a panel found insufficient evidence.

Ramaphosa’s Legal Team Defends Review

Ramaphosa’s counsel, Wim Trengove SC, argued that the court would not be interfering in Parliament’s powers by reviewing the legality of the panel’s report.

He said several institutions, including SARS, the Reserve Bank, the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and the National Prosecuting Authority, had investigated aspects of the Phala Phala matter without finding wrongdoing by the president.

Trengove argued that the panel had applied the wrong test when determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support the impeachment charges.

According to Trengove, the panel interpreted “sufficient evidence” as meaning prima facie evidence instead of weighing the evidence for and against Ramaphosa.

He also argued that the panel failed to properly consider whether Ramaphosa had acted deliberately and in bad faith, as required by the impeachment rules.

Dispute Over Arthur Fraser’s Allegations

Trengove also challenged the evidence provided by former State Security Agency boss Arthur Fraser, whose criminal complaint in June 2022 triggered the controversy.

Fraser alleged that millions of dollars had been stolen from Phala Phala and that the theft had subsequently been covered up.

Trengove argued that the panel should have given little or no weight to Fraser’s statement because he did not disclose the source of his information.

He further argued that the panel breached Ramaphosa’s right to respond by relying on matters beyond the four impeachment charges.

The legal team also rejected the argument that cash hidden in a couch at Phala Phala demonstrated that Ramaphosa had received payment for outside work.

Impeachment Process Remains On Hold

The National Assembly’s impeachment committee has been barred from holding public hearings while Ramaphosa’s review application is pending.

The committee cannot proceed until the High Court delivers its judgment.

If Ramaphosa succeeds, the Section 89 panel report could be set aside, potentially bringing the current impeachment process to an end.

If his application fails, Parliament could resume the impeachment inquiry and consider whether the president should face further action.

Ramaphosa has consistently denied wrongdoing and maintains that the foreign currency stolen from Phala Phala was proceeds from the sale of game.