Progressive democracies are built on the bedrock of separation of powers, where legislatures make laws, executives implement them and courts apply them.
This makeup has held South Africa in good stead when the executive ran amok and the legislature fell short of holding it accountable.
All three legs are not a law unto themselves but are subject to the supreme law of the republic, the constitution.
The Constitutional Court on Friday found that parliament violated the laws it helped make by blocking moves to impeach President Cyril Ramaphosa in 2022 — over foreign currency stolen at his Phala Phala farm in 2020.
An investigation by an independent panel led by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, though not conclusive, found there was a prima facie breach of the country’s laws in the manner in which the foreign currency was earned and handled.
The independent panel found Ramaphosa may have committed a serious violation of the law, which required a parliamentary impeachment committee to be established to allow for a thorough testing of the prima facie evidence.
Faced with the finding, parliament opted to ignore the former chief justice’s misgivings and stalled his recommendations through a vote.
The top court’s judgment served as another low point for parliament, which has in the past used more or less the same shenanigans to shield the executive from scrutiny. Exactly the opposite of what the constitution demands of them.
The president’s mere denial of wrongdoing does not cut it — he deserves his day before parliament to make his case.
It is disappointing that parliament, like it did in the watershed Nkandla judgment before it, fails to reckon with its constitutional obligations, seemingly fixated rather on political considerations when holding the executive accountable.
This is a great disservice to the millions of South Africans who rely on parliamentarians to ensure clean governance.
The judiciary has had to step in again and give orders to parliament on matters that only need political will and a good conscience of MPs who took an oath to defend the constitution.
By denying itself an opportunity to look deeper into the president’s conduct, using the ANC’s then-majority in parliament, the legislature did a disservice to the standing of parliament — and to Ramaphosa himself.
For the greater part of his presidency, he has had to live with the Phala Phala monkey on his back.
The rule of law is affirmed when the most powerful in society are held to the same standards as those who have no means to put up a defence.
The apex court, like it did in the Nkandla judgment and in sentencing a former head of state to direct imprisonment for defying the law, has again held the line firm in maintaining the supremacy of the constitution.
The public protector and the South African Reserve Bank must also be given a public opportunity to explain what evidence they relied on to clear the president. The roles of the two institutions are critical to a functioning democracy. It is not right that they are subjected to speculation of having protected the president from accountability.
The top court’s decision provides an opportunity for them to account to South Africans why and how they came to absolve the president of blame.
As one of the leading architects of the constitution, President Ramaphosa, more than anyone else, must embrace the judgment.
It serves no prejudice to him. Instead, it provides him an opportunity to fully participate in a process that can clear his name, if indeed he is innocent.
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.