President Cyril Ramaphosa will no longer challenge the Section 89 report in court, which called for his impeachment over Phala Phala, as Parliament has dealt with the matter.
Ramaphosa’s spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the parliamentary process in December rendered any legal process moot.
Political parties had tried to revive the motion after the report was rejected by the ANC in Parliament, but failed.
Magwenya said Ramaphosa had noted the decision of the Constitutional Court in March in which it refused to hear his application.
He had gone directly to the Constitutional Court because he felt the matter belonged there.
Magwenya said Ramaphosa respects the court’s decision not to hear the case.
However, the president was advised there was no basis to continue with the legal challenge of the Section 89 report because Parliament had rejected the establishment of an impeachment committee.
Magwenya said Ramaphosa may still pursue the legal option if the need arose.
“The decision that was taken by the National Assembly to reject the motion to refer the panel report to an impeachment committee renders that report moot. As I have said it is of no practical or legal consequence at the moment for as long as that decision still stands. As I have indicated the president does reserve his right to bring such proceedings in due course should circumstances change,” said Magwenya.
He added that Ramaphosa had obtained legal advice on this matter and agreed that there was no basis to continue with the court application to challenge the report.
The panel, chaired by retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, was established by Parliament to determine if Ramaphosa had a case to answer.
In its findings the panel called for the impeachment process to be instituted.
But the majority of parliamentarians voted against the report.
Magwenya said Ramaphosa still stands by his application that the report can be reviewed.
“The president maintains his position set out in his founding affidavit before the Constitutional Court that the panel report is reviewable in law on several grounds including the misconception of its mandate, the grave errors of law and the unfounded conclusions of fact,” said Magwenya.
Current Affairs