Johannesburg - Analysts believe President Cyril Ramaphosa has deliberately skirted around the Phala Phala saga, even though he pretended to be accountable.
In his State of the Nation Address (Sona) on Thursday, Ramaphosa failed to talk about the Phala Phala Farmgate, a dark cloud over his head, though he boldly spoke out against corruption.
The issue led to the EFF being kicked out of Parliament after questioning being addressed by a man facing allegations of serious crimes.
“Ramaphosa has deliberately skirted around the Phala Phala matter, even as he pretends to be accountable. He can count on the law-enforcement agencies not doing their jobs. None has the courage to take on a sitting president,” said political analyst Professor Sipho Seepe.
He said the matter was far from over.
Last month, the EFF joined the ATM in opposing Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala application.
“The Phala Phala matter will not go away; the EFF has taken the matter to court; Ramaphosa can run, but he can’t hide,” Seepe said.
Ramaphosa's Sona address on Thursday was delayed by over 20 minutes amid EFF calls for his blood with party MPs led by leader Julius Malema accusing him of being corrupt and calling on him to step down.
EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said they wanted Ramaphosa to be held accountable regarding the Phala Phala matter.
“EFF remains determined to ensure that Ramaphosa is held accountable not only for his crimes at and in relation to Phala Phala Farm, but also for the role he continues to play in destroying South Africa,” Thambo said.
The party made it clear it wanted Ramaphosa to resign and vowed to continue to confront him.
“We commend the EFF parliamentary caucus for its fearlessness and commit to continuing the fight against Ramaphosa by any means necessary. We will continue to confront him, wherever he rears his ugly head and make the comfortable uncomfortable, until his eventual resignation! It’s no retreat, no surrender!” Thambo said.
Political analyst Jamie Mighti shared his thoughts on the EFF’s strategy, saying he thought it was part of democracy and legitimate.
“I think that holding the executive to account should not merely be restricted to asking questions and having debates in Parliament. Why do I say that? Number one, because when you have a party which has a larger share of the Parliament, they can use their numbers to bully you into silence or can use their votes to prevent accountability. So it’s my opinion that there was supposed to be an impeachment committee to look into the allegations surrounding Phala Phala. And I think that the independent panel outlined clear reasons why there should be such an impeachment panel, that prima facie finding against him, I think, was something that needed to be examined more robustly by Parliament,” Mighti said.
He said he thought what happened with the ANC benches was that they voted on the party line as opposed to voting in the interest of the public and with accountability and transparency.
Mighti said there was a need to do other things besides just relying on either a vote, parliamentary questions, or even just debate.
“I think that you have to use any measures available to you to get accountability when you are an MP. I think it’s legitimate. Also, I think that there is precedent for this, and therefore we can’t condemn it now,” he said.
Mighti said when the EFF asked former president Jacob Zuma to pay back the money, they were supported, and when they sang “uBaba kaDuduzan” in Parliament, many people supported it because they didn’t like Zuma.
“But if you support the principle, you have to support the principle consistently. So if you supported them holding Zuma to account using creative methods of parliamentary process, then you have to support them holding Ramaphosa to account for Phala Phala,” he said.
Mighti said he thought there were still many legitimate questions surrounding the Phala Phala scandal.
“I think there are questions around how the money got into the country, into the sofa around whether or not the money was declared to SARS, whether or not the money was legal, and also what happened after the money was stolen.
“I think some of those questions need to be probed more thoroughly. The independent panel published its findings within two months. The Public Protector Report, they said it’s out there, we haven’t seen it. We haven’t seen the outcome of the police investigation. We haven’t seen the outcome of the SARS investigation. So therefore, I think that parliamentarians are entitled to pursue that avenue of discovery. But also, I think that we need to know what happened with Phala Phala, and I think that it can’t just go away. The problem in Africa is that we bury too much stuff under the rug because we like a politician, because we like a particular faction or we think they’re better than others, and that, in the long run, kills democracy,” Mighti said.
The Star