A revolt is brewing within the ANC after some party MPs said they would not toe the party line and reject the parliamentary motion to set up an impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa at a crucial sitting next week.
A National Executive Committee (NEC) member who attended Monday’s meeting believes the highest decision-making body was strong-armed into making its decision.
The source said by mounting a collective challenge against a parliamentary motion, the party was repeating the mistakes of 2017.
“It raises serious alarms. Some of us are not saying we will abide by the NEC decision. We are simply saying we will do what is right, as always.”
Supporters of former health minister Zweli Mkhize and Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma say they “will do the right thing” when Parliament sits next Tuesday, although they maintain that neither are lobbying others to do the same.
On Monday, ANC acting secretary-general Paul Mashatile announced that the ANC NEC had resolved that the party would vote against the adoption of the report of the Section 89 panel, as Ramaphosa was taking it on review.
Ramaphosa has approached the Constitutional Court for direct access, saying he believed the report was flawed.
Also on Monday, Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula deferred the special parliamentary session to discuss the panel report to next week, December 13.
Mkhize’s spokesperson, Vuyo Mkhize, said the former health minister remained resolute in his belief that the parliamentary impeachment process should proceed, as the panel report had found that there are a number of questions which the president has to answer.
“He believes there can be no better opportunity for the president to answer these, with a view to clearing his name, than this parliamentary impeachment process,” said Mkhize.
Sources at Monday’s NEC meeting said Mkhize did not waver from his belief that the parliamentary process should continue.
“The NEC had agreed beforehand to support the outcome of the panel report and it came as a major surprise to him that they had changed tack, which is a contradiction of their previous stance. He is likely to vote for a continuation of the process and to argue for the report to be adopted by Parliament. It will be surprising if he turns around and rejects the report,” said the spokesperson.
“Dr Mkhize himself was subjected to a parliamentary investigative process which proceeded to clear him of the allegations he faced in connection with the Digital Vibes matter,” he said.
Dlamini Zuma’s spokesperson, Mlungisi Mtshali, said on Twitter that she was a member of the National Working Committee and NEC.
“Outside that, she is not part of any group, let alone leading one. Her views on the section 89 report are hers alone, she has expressed them as the report became public and she stands by them.”
The ATM, which brought the motion of no confidence against Ramaphosa and set in motion the Section 89 panel, said they believed a handful of ANC MPs would vote in support of the motion.
Party leader Vuyo Zungula said Ramaphosa was doing everything possible to avoid scrutiny and accountability.
“He has gone to court to review the panel report to avoid accountability. He also wants to intimidate those who want to take action against him.”
On Monday, EFF leader Julius Malema said they were confident 30 to 40 ANC MPs would vote for the establishment of the impeachment committee, despite the process not being held by secret ballot.
“If they (ANC MPs) are for the Constitution, rule of law and not for the man, let South Africans see … who is for the individual or for the Constitution. They must say my conscience does not allow me to vote against the establishment of the committee.” He added that MPs should not be intimidated if they vote against party lines as they are protected because they are representatives of the people of South Africa.
The IFP said yesterday in a statement that it would support the findings of the panel report.
“The debate will proceed following the advice of Parliament’s legal advisers that the sub judice rule does not apply, as there is currently no matter before the court.
“As the IFP, we believe that President Ramaphosa jumped the gun by filing an application with the court, as he would still have had an opportunity to challenge the findings of the Section 89 report as part of the parliamentary process.
“We further do not agree with the approach taken by his legal team in challenging individual panellists, as the report is the product of a parliamentary process. We therefore expect the Speaker to file an opposing affidavit.”