Impeachment Committee mulls summoning Ramaphosa
Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee is actively considering whether President Cyril Ramaphosa could be summoned to testify, as detailed advice from Parliamentary Legal Services outlines the scope of its powers and the limits of the process.
The committee reconvened on Wednesday to continue deliberations on appointing evidence leaders and refining the terms of reference for its inquiry into the Phala Phala matter.
This comes amid an ongoing legal battle, with the committee having approached the Constitutional Court to overturn a Western Cape High Court ruling that halted public hearings.
Central to the latest discussions is whether Ramaphosa can be compelled to appear before the committee.
Presenting the legal opinion, Parliamentary Legal Services advisor Sueanne Isaacs said: "...the committee has clear constitutional and statutory authority to summon the president to testify."
She explained that this power is grounded in Parliament’s constitutional oversight role.
"'Accordingly, the president falls within the category of persons who may be lawfully summoned before a parliamentary committee."
However, Isaacs stressed that this power should be exercised with caution.
"We recommend, as a matter of fairness and parliamentary practice, that the committee should first invite the president to testify voluntarily. Only if the president declines to appear should the committee consider issuing a formal summons."
The legal advice also addressed broader procedural concerns, including the standard of proof required in impeachment proceedings. Isaacs noted that neither the Constitution nor National Assembly rules prescribe a fixed threshold.
"The committee should ensure that any findings are supported by cogent, reliable and persuasive evidence sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements of legality, rationality, and procedural fairness."
On the sequencing of testimony, Legal Services strongly cautioned against calling the President at the outset of proceedings.
Advocate Michael Prince told the committee that doing so would undermine fairness.
"Requiring the president to testify before any evidence is led would effectively compel him to respond to an undeveloped case and would result in an impermissible reversal of the burden of proof."
He added that the committee must first build its case.
"The committee must therefore establish the factual basis of the charges through its own evidence-gathering process before requiring the president to answer them."
Prince further emphasised that the process must remain evidence-driven and constitutionally sound.
"The section 89 impeachment process requires the impeachment committee to conduct an objective, evidence-based inquiry consistent with constitutional principles."
Legal Services also highlighted that there may be instances in which the inquiry need not proceed fully if the evidence does not support it.
Citing recent Constitutional Court commentary, Prince noted that, "It may become apparent, even at an early stage, that the evidentiary foundation underpinning the charges cannot sustain the finding," adding that in such cases, "the termination of the inquiry without a full-blown trial may well be justified."
Meanwhile, the committee continues to push ahead with internal processes despite the court-ordered pause on hearings. It has filed for direct access to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the High Court applied the wrong legal test in granting the interim interdict.
The impeachment inquiry stems from allegations linked to the 2020 theft of foreign currency at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm in Limpopo. An independent panel previously found that the President may have a case to answer, a finding he is now challenging in court.
ALSO READ
