ANC MPs followed the party line at a special sitting of the National Assembly on Tuesday, voting to quash the Phala Phala report, throwing a lifeline to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s bid to retain his leadership of the party and the state.
After a long and laborious voting process in which each MP had to stand up and say whether or not they support the adoption of the report, all but four of the governing party’s members present in the session overwhelmingly rejected the report. The ANC is the majority party in the 400-member national legislature with 230 seats. There were at least 10 ANC MPs absent during Tuesday’s session.
Ramaphosa’s opponents — including tourism minister Lindiwe Sisulu, who has been vocal about her criticism of the president, and ANC presidential hopeful Zweli Mkhize — were absent from the proceedings and could not vote against the party line when it counted.
Only four ANC MPs voted in support of the adoption of the report. They were co-operative governance & traditional affairs minister Nkosazana Dlamini- Zuma; Mervyn Dirks; former North West premier Supra Mahumapelo; and former minister and Gupta ally Mosebenzi Zwane, who is one of the accused in the R280m Estina dairy farm project.
ANC national executive member Tandi Mahambehlala initially voted yes, but later said her vote was captured wrongly and she intended to vote no.
Of the 364 MPs who attended the sitting, 214 voted against the report, with 148 supporting its adoption. Two abstained. The report needed a simple majority for it to be adopted.
Coming just three days before the start of the ANC elective conference, the outcome of Tuesday’s session will boost Ramaphosa’s re-election bid, despite clear divisions within the party, with some senior members pushing for him to step aside following the damaging Phala Phala scandal.
The party’s national executive committee, which is the highest decision-making body between conferences, had issued an instruction to the party’s MPs to vote against the report and reject the establishment of an impeachment inquiry, as Ramaphosa challenges the report in court.
Senior members of the party and Ramaphosa’s allies had warned that those who support the report could face expulsion from the party and therefore lose their positions as MPs.
The report by the independent panel, chaired by retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, found there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa might have violated the constitution and his oath of office in the manner in which he dealt with the theft of hundreds of thousands of dollars from his luxury Phala Phala game farm.
The National Assembly had to vote on whether to accept or reject the initiation of an impeachment process against Ramaphosa on the basis of the report. An impeachment process would have left the president vulnerable ahead of the elective conference.
ANC MPs opposing the report said there was no clear evidence of wrongdoing on Ramaphosa’s part and therefore an impeachment proceeding would be unjustified at this stage.
Justice & correctional services minister Ronald Lamola came out guns blazing during the debate and slammed the Phala Phala report, saying it cannot be used as a basis to remove a sitting president.
He said the panel report equated the sufficient evidence required by the rules of parliament with prima facie evidence, which sets a much lower bar. There was not sufficient evidence to impeach Ramaphosa, the minister said.
Addressing opposition party arguments that parliament must hold the executive to account, Lamola said the debate taking place on the panel report was in itself an act of accountability.
“If the president wanted to run away from the debate, he could have interdicted the debate,” the minister said.
“As the ANC, we believe the panel has not been able to establish that there is sufficient evidence to commence an impeachment inquiry,” he said.
“As the ANC, we believe that the contents of the report do not justify the conclusion that the president has a case to answer. The report does not guide us, instead it fuels more speculation, encouraging instability and uncertainty in our democratic system,” Lamola said.
“In a nutshell, the panel has lowered the bar too low for proceedings to impeach a sitting president to commence and that will set a very dangerous precedent for our constitutional democracy. In both facts and the law, the panel’s report cannot stand.”
DA leader John Steenhuisen said the Phala Phala scandal was no different from the Nkandla debacle during the Jacob Zuma years.
"‘Never again’, we were told in the wake of the damning Zondo report. Never again would parliament be declawed and disempowered, as it was in those dark days. Not under this president [Ramaphosa], who rode in majestically on the promise of a new dawn and pledged to do things differently.
“And yet, here we are again. What has really changed? Then it was Nkandla. Now it’s Phala Phala.”
Steenhuisen said the ANC had always voted to shield its leaders, even when there was clear evidence of wrongdoing.
Accountable
“But if the ANC and the president think they’ve succeeded in drawing a line under the Phala Phala scandal, they are very much mistaken. As we did throughout the Zuma years, the DA will use every resource and every avenue at our disposal to hold the president to account, and to ensure that our parliament remains functional and intact. This fight has only just begun,” the DA leader said.
Ramaphosa, who initially considered resigning after the release of the report, has applied to the Constitutional Court for a judicial review. This application has so far been opposed by African Transformation Movement president Vuyo Zungula.
He argued that “it is not in the interests of justice for the Constitutional Court to hear the application directly because there are disputes of fact and it cannot be the first and final arbiter to interpret the rules of parliament. It should also not be the court of first and last instance to determine whether the non-binding recommendatory report is reviewable.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.