Cape Town - The Presidency has played down the Constitutional Court order refusing President Cyril Ramaphosa direct access to challenge the damning Section 89 report, which found he may have committed severe violations of the Constitution over the Phala Phala scandal.
The Constitutional Court concluded that no case had been made for exclusive jurisdiction or direct access to the apex court.
“Consequently, the application to intervene falls to be dismissed,” stated the Concourt order, adding that the court did not award costs.
While this has revived calls for Ramaphosa to resign, his spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the judgment was not a blow to Ramaphosa. His legal team would convene to map the way forward and consider options.
He said the judgment dealt with a procedural matter with regards to Ramaphosa seeking direct access to the apex court.
“That judgment does not pronounce on the merits of the case.
“That judgment says there is no case for ConCourt to be petitioned directly,” Magwenya said.
“It is not necessarily a blow and it’s not a judgment dealing with substantive and merits of the case.
“It is dealing with procedural issues insofar as whether the president was correct to petition ConCourt directly.
“Our view is that he was correct in doing so because the matter concerns the report seized with the conduct of the president and our view is that the ConCourt has the right to hear the matter,” Magwenya said.
Donda Attorneys lawyer, Melusi Xulu explained that to get direct access, Ramaphosa had first prove the issue was constitutional
“Second, you want the issue ruled on urgently based on that fact. “Third, whether there are any disputes of facts in what you are raising and, lastly, it must be considered if there's a possibility of obtaining the relief in another court.
“The Constitutional Court decided that the president did not give sufficient grounds for exclusive jurisdiction or direct access.
“Instead of taking the report to the high court, he went straight to the Constitutional Court, where he wanted the matter reviewed.
“He has to prove it is in the interest of justice for him to do so." Ramaphosa would now have to go to the Western Cape High Court if he still wanted the matter reviewed, the lawyer said.
Ramaphosa took the damning Ngcobo report on judicial review in December.
This was days before ANC MPs used their majority in the National Assembly to vote against it being adopted.
Had the vote gone the other way, it would have meant Ramaphosa was going to be hauled before impeachment proceedings where he would have had a chance to state his case.
The three-member panel led by retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo had found that Ramaphosa had a case to answer to over the Phala Phala saga.
The saga involves millions in foreign currency being concealed in a couch at Phala Phala.
The money was stolen by a group of men believed to be from Namibia. Ramaphosa had claimed the money was from the sale of animals. However,it remains unclear why it wasn’t banked and whether it had been declared with the relevant institutions, including Sars.
The 2020 break-in was also not reported to the police.
This raised suspicions that there were attempts to hide the crime from the public.
It only came to light after former State Security Agency head Arthur Fraser lodged a complaint against Ramaphosa in June last year.
Wednesday’s order emboldened parties to call for the establishment of an ad hoc committee to probe crimes that arose from the break-in and theft of dollars on his farm in Limpopo.
ATM spokesperson Zama Ntshona said the court was saying Ramaphosa’s application to review the Section 89 panel report did not even warrant its attention.
“This ruling further strengthens the case by the ATM, which challenged the rationality of the voting that took place in Parliament,” Ntshona said.
“Very importantly, this ruling means the findings of the Section 89 Panel that Mr Ramaphosa may have violated his oath of office, seriously violated the Constitution and has a case to answer for violation of foreign exchange laws and regulations, among others, remain legally unchallenged,” he said.
EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said Ramaphosa’s approach to the Constitutional Court was irrational and senseless because he was asking the court to prevent Parliament from holding him accountable.
“The Constitutional Court has correctly and decidedly rejected Mr Ramaphosa’s attempts to prevent Parliament from holding him accountable, and we demand that the Speaker of Parliament must, as a matter of urgency, put in place mechanisms, committees and aside resources for Parliament to investigate all the crimes committed at Phala Phala,” Thambo said.
DA leader John Steenhuisen said Ramaphosa had launched the application in a desperate attempt to save his political skin.
“Now that this attempt has been unanimously dismissed by the highest court in the land, it is time for the president to finally tell the full truth about Phala Phala.
“Instead of employing the Stalingrad tactics made famous by his predecessor, through launching yet another application in a different court, President Ramaphosa needs to take the country into his confidence about what truly transpired at Phala Phala in Parliament, the body to which he is constitutionally obligated to account,” Steenhuisen said.
Rhodes University, Department of Political and International Studies, senior lecturer, Dr Mandisi Majavu, added: “The decision by the Constitution Court tells us that not all political institutions are captured or corrupt in this country.
This should give us hope as South Africans. For the ANC, however, this reveals a political party that is deeply morally confused. It shouldn’t have come to this. Ramaphosa should have resigned a long time (ago) over this scandal. Had Ramaphosa resigned over this, he would have set the right moral tone. He could still do that if he wants to.”
Political analyst Professor Sipho Seepe said: “The ANC will have to reflect on the judgment because the argument they used to protect Ramaphosa was that he had taken the matter on review.
“Now the court is saying you jumped the gun in the first place. It brings into question the parliamentary decision not to proceed.”
Cape Times