Julius Malema and Marshall Dlamini, the leaders of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), stand firm inside the Constitutional Court as they challenge Parliament’s decision not to impeach President Cyril Ramaphosa over the Phalaphala scandal.
(The Post News)- The Constitutional Court has convened to hear a critical case initiated by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM). The two opposition parties are challenging Parliament’s refusal to launch an impeachment inquiry against President Cyril Ramaphosa regarding the Phalaphala scandal.
The EFF and ATM argue that Parliament’s decision to reject the Section 89 Independent Panel Report, which indicated potential wrongdoing by the President, was irrational and unlawful. They claim that Parliament failed to hold the Executive accountable by dismissing the report without further investigation, undermining the very foundations of accountability.
During the proceedings, Justices raised crucial questions regarding the lengthy 14-month delay in presenting the case to court. Justice Majid and other members of the bench scrutinized whether such a delay would undermine the credibility of the EFF and ATM’s arguments.
Critics have highlighted that the transition from the 6th to the 7th Parliament complicates matters. The 6th Parliament, predominantly ANC-controlled, is vastly different from the current assembly, raising valid concerns about whether the new National Assembly should address decisions made by its predecessor.
The EFF is seeking to have the National Assembly’s decision overturned and demands an order for the initiation of an impeachment inquiry. However, legal experts warn that such a directive could risk violating the fundamental principle of separation of powers.
The court may ultimately choose to send the matter back to the National Assembly with recommendations to rectify procedural deficiencies without imposing specific directives. This approach could ensure a balance between judicial oversight and the respect for parliamentary independence.
The ANC, the Speaker of the National Assembly, and President Ramaphosa have condemned the EFF and ATM’s efforts. They assert that the impeachment process must not devolve into a “fishing expedition,” stressing the grave implications of such proceedings, which could strip the President of crucial benefits if found guilty.
The case has further underscored existing gaps in parliamentary rules governing impeachment inquiries. Legal counsel for the EFF advocated for necessary reforms to guarantee thorough examination of evidence by committees ahead of any National Assembly decision on such matters.
As the court continues its deliberation, the implications of the outcome could profoundly impact South Africa’s constitutional democracy. Should the court side with the EFF and ATM, it could pave the way for significant reforms in parliamentary processes and set a groundbreaking precedent for impeachment inquiries. However, the issues surrounding delays and the principles of separation of powers might ultimately sway the judgment in favor of the respondents. Judgment has been reserved, and the nation now eagerly anticipates a ruling that has the potential to redefine the dynamics between judicial intervention and parliamentary accountability.
About the Author
