ATM leader Vuyo Zungula said Tuesday’s decision by the ANC to use its majority in Parliament to vote against the adoption of the Section 89 independent panel report on the Phala Phala scandal is an indication that the president and ministers are above the law.
Of the 400 members of the National Assembly, 214 voted no, 148 yes, and two people indicated they were abstaining from the vote, with Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa Nqakula saying that the motion for the impeachment process would not continue.
The majority of ANC MPs indicated that they would not support the motion, with five MPs, including Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, Mervyn Dirks, Supra Mahumapelo and Mosebenzi Zwane, indicating that they wanted the motion to proceed.
Zungula said the decision was irrational as it was not a vote to impeach the president and instead, was a vote to allow Parliament to proceed with its investigation into the Phala Phala scandal.
“The ANC rejected the motion to adopt the section 89 panel report in the same way it rejected the motion to set up an ad hoc committee to investigate Phala Phala.
“We are going to court to challenge the Speaker’s decision not to allow a secret ballot and the decision by Parliament not to pursue a report that parliament itself had instituted. This is irrational.”
Zungula said the ANC had always operated in a manner that shields its leaders from accountability.
“They continue to use its majority to work together to protect the interests of the party and not the country,” Zungula said.
ANC presidential candidate Dr Zweli Mkhize and tourism minister Lindiwe Sisulu were absent during the vote.
The ANC national chairperson had earlier in the week, in an interview with a national newspaper, warned that ANC MPs who did not toe the line would face expulsion from the party.
This was after the national working committee and the national executive committee had announced that its MPs should vote against adopting the motion as the matter was being taken on review.
Last week, Ramaphosa filed papers at the Constitutional Court for a review of the panel report, saying he wanted direct access to the highest court in the land because of the serious nature of the report’s recommendations.