South African Parliament Speaker not to oppose President Ramaphosa's bid to halt impeachment inquiry
Cape Town, June 21
South Africa's Parliament Speaker Thokozile Didiza will not oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa's urgent bid to halt the impeachment proceedings, the Parliament said on Sunday.
Ramaphosa filed an urgent application on June 12, seeking to suspend the Impeachment Committee's work while challenging the findings of an independent panel report into the Phala Phala affair. In court papers, he argued that the proceedings should be paused pending a judicial review of the report, Xinhua news agency reported.
On May 26, the President launched a separate challenge asking the Western Cape High Court to review and set aside the panel's findings.
Didiza filed a notice on Friday, saying that she would abide by the Western Cape High Court's decision. The move means that the Parliament will not contest the application.
In a statement on Sunday, the Parliament said Didiza's notice to abide will be filed alongside an explanatory affidavit to assist the court.
"Given the content of the explanatory affidavit, the Speaker believes that the stance adopted is not only necessary but is entirely consistent with the respective roles and responsibilities of the Assembly versus those of the Impeachment Committee," it said.
The development came days after the Impeachment Committee said it would oppose Ramaphosa's urgent court application and had asked Didiza to join the committee in opposing the President's bid.
The impeachment process was revived after South Africa's Constitutional Court ruled last month that the Parliament had acted unlawfully when it rejected the panel's report in 2022.
The Phala Phala case stems from the alleged theft of about $580,000 in cash from Ramaphosa's private game farm in Limpopo Province in 2020.
An independent panel chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo found in a 2022 report that there was prima facie evidence suggesting that Ramaphosa may have committed serious misconduct in connection with the matter. However, the National Assembly later voted against adopting the report and pursuing impeachment proceedings.
— IANS
Reader Comments
$580,000 in cash at a game farm? That's a lot of money to have lying around. In any democracy, leaders should be transparent about their finances. South Africa's constitutional court seems quite robust though - overturning the parliament's previous decision shows checks and balances are working.
बहुत interesting case hai! The way the independent panel's report was initially rejected by parliament, and now the constitutional court has revived it - this shows judicial supremacy is important. In India too, we've seen how the Supreme Court can review parliamentary decisions. But honestly, keeping such large cash amounts is questionable anywhere. Hope the truth comes out! 🇿🇦
The Speaker's decision to not oppose the President's bid seems like a smart legal strategy. In any impeachment process, it's better to let the courts determine the validity of procedures rather than having parliament and the president in a direct confrontation. South Africa's democracy is still young but showing maturity in handling such crises. Let's see what the Western Cape High Court decides.
A comment from an international perspective: This reminds me of how impeachment processes work in different democracies. The key here is whether the President actually violated any laws regarding the undeclared cash. In many countries, leaders face scrutiny over unexplained wealth. The panel finding "prima facie evidence" of misconduct is serious - that's not a term used lightly in legal proceedings.
As an Indian watching this, I can't help but think about our own political controversies. The difference is that in South Africa, there seems to be a clearer mechanism for impeachment. Here, we've seen how
We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.