ConCourt hears Ramaphosa did not act in bad faith

The EFF and the African Transformation Movement turned to the highest court in the land to challenge the National Assembly’s decision  not to adopt an independent panel report recommending an impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa.

This case stems from the Section 89 panel's findings, led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, which found that Ramaphosa had a prima facie case to answer regarding the alleged theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala farm. 

The controversy lies in Ramaphosa's failure to report the theft and questions surrounding the legality of the foreign currency transaction.

Both parties argue that the National Assembly’s move was unlawful, and believe it was meant to shield Ramaphosa from accountability. 

The EFF and ATM maintained that the president had a case to answer, particularly concerning whether he acted in violation of his constitutional duties by not reporting the theft and the legality of the foreign currency in question.

However, the president’s legal counsel, Advocate Geoff Budlender, told the court that Ramaphosa had no intention of violating the law.

“The president’s farming activities have never been a secret. He’s published a book of photographs of the particular breed of cattle in which he has a particular interest. 

“It seems very unlikely that he deliberately and in bad faith ignored the law and then published his activities. 

“Perhaps more likely is that he genuinely thought that he was entitled to act as he did and he lacked dolus and bad faith. 

“Again, the question is not whether the president’s interpretation was right or wrong, it is whether his interpretation was in bad faith,” Budlender argued.

At the same time, Advocate Andrew Breitenbach, representing the National Assembly and the Speaker, argued that the house has a legal duty to decide on how best to hold the executive to account.

 "Parliament must decide whether or not it agrees with the panel's advice that enough evidence exists or does not exist,” he said, 

Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, representing the ANC, dismissed claims by the EFF that ANC MPs were pressured to protect Ramaphosa during the Phala Phala inquiry. 

Ngcukaitobi stated there was "no evidence" to support these allegations, emphasising that ANC MPs acted appropriately in their role as public representatives. 

He further argued that the National Assembly's decision to reject the independent panel report was rational and within legal bounds.

ALSO READ