ATM Challenges Constitutionality of Parliamentary Rule in Ramaphosa Impeachment Debate

The African Transformation Movement (ATM) has called for President Cyril Ramaphosa to face judicial scrutiny like any ordinary citizen if there is evidence of wrongdoing. The party is questioning the constitutionality of a parliamentary rule that allowed the National Assembly to bypass a Section 89 impeachment process against the president, bringing the issue before the Constitutional Court.

The ATM, alongside the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), is contesting the National Assembly’s decision in December 2022 to dismiss an independent panel report. The report, prepared by a panel of jurists led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, examined evidence related to the 2020 burglary at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm.

Advocate Anton Katz, representing the ATM, criticized the dismissal of the report as irrational, arguing that the ruling African National Congress (ANC) ignored the report’s findings despite ongoing investigations by various institutions.

“It is the height of irrationality for Parliament to dismiss the panel’s findings while investigations by the Hawks, the Reserve Bank, SARS, and the Public Protector were still underway,” Katz said.

Katz dismissed arguments about procedural technicalities, urging the court to focus on the core issue. “The real question is the elephant in the room – a couch with $500,000 in cash, unaccounted for. Yet we are all ignoring it.”

The debate over whether the independent panel relied on prima facie or substantial evidence was also described as a distraction from the key issues. Katz emphasized that institutions like the Hawks and SARS are not involved in the impeachment process, highlighting Parliament’s unique responsibility in holding the president accountable.

The case has reignited tensions surrounding the Phala Phala scandal, with opposition parties arguing that the ANC’s actions undermine transparency and accountability. The Constitutional Court’s decision on this matter is likely to have far-reaching implications for how Parliament handles impeachment processes in the future.