Publications
Partners
- The ANC defended its decision not to support a motion to establish an ad hoc committee to investigate Phala Phala.
- They dismissed the DA's criticism that it is shielding President Cyril Ramaphosa, saying "due process must be followed in order to establish the facts, so that evidence informs how Parliament should respond".
- The Zondo Commission found that Parliament has a duty to investigate "where there is reasonable cause to suspect unconstitutional, unlawful or improper conduct on the part of a senior representative of the executive".
The ANC caucus defended its decision not to support a motion for the establishment of an ad hoc committee into Phala Phala by doubling down on the discredited notion that law enforcement agencies must first investigate alleged malfeasance before Parliament can act.
On Wednesday, the ANC, with the help of GOOD, blocked the establishment of an ad hoc committee to investigate the scandal surrounding a break-in at President Cyril Ramaphosa's Limpopo game farm Phala Phala.
All the other opposition parties present – DA, EFF, IFP, FF Plus, ACDP, UDM, ATM, and PAC – voted in favour of the motion, brought by DA chief whip Siviwe Gwarube.
When the motion was debated the previous day, the ANC said a Section 89 process was under way, with an independent panel appointed to determine a prima facie case for Ramaphosa to answer, rendering the DA's motion superfluous.
The DA, and other opposition parties, argued that this was not the case, as the Section 89 process would only be seized with Ramaphosa's impeachment, and the ad hoc committee would have a much wider scope, also investigating other state agencies involved.
The ANC further argued that Parliament shouldn't probe the matter while other law enforcement agencies were investigating.
READ | ANC blocks ad hoc committee to investigate Phala Phala
Phala Phala became a burning issue in June after the former director-general at the State Security Agency and former commissioner of correctional services, Arthur Fraser, opened a kidnapping and money laundering case against Ramaphosa, Presidential Protection Unit head Major-General Wally Rhoode, and Crime Intelligence members for allegedly concealing a burglary at Ramaphosa's Phala Phala farm in February 2020.
According to Fraser's affidavit, Ramaphosa had at least $4 million in cash stashed in a couch at his game farm - and then played a part in a cover-up following an allegedly illegal investigation into the matter.
On Friday, ANC chief whip Pemmy Majodina issued a media statement, saying when dealing with such a matter, "we should be guided by the principles of law and facts, as opposed to what an individual or political party wish to be the desired outcome".
She mentioned that the South African Reserve Bank's Financial Surveillance department is probing allegations related to the matter of foreign-exchange transactions connected to the burglary at the farm. Furthermore, the Public Protector is also investigating the matter.
"The fact is that in response to a letter from the DA to the speaker, the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence has investigated certain allegations pertaining to the alleged involvement of the deputy minister responsible for state security as well as the alleged abuse of a secret Crime Intelligence fund. These allegations were dismissed as rumours by the committee. The committee found that there was 'no independently verifiable information to support the allegations'," reads the statement.
This committee conducted its investigation behind closed doors, and the DA were left unimpressed with the outcome, advancing it as another reason why an ad hoc committee should be established.
READ | Zizi Kodwa cleared on Phala Phala allegations by Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence
Majodina continued, stating that the ATM submitted an amended motion in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution, and that it has been referred to an independent panel as required.
"The fact is that parallel to the Parliamentary process, the Hawks, SAPS, South African Reserve Bank and the Office of the Public Protector are carrying out investigations.
"Despite this, the DA is not satisfied that we have five institutions investigating the matter and want an ad hoc committee in addition. Four of these institutions are specialised and skilled in investigating matters of theft and any subsequent breach of law. It is their task to enforce the law through due process."
Majodina said the ANC caucus' standpoint is that "due process must be followed in order to establish the facts, so that evidence informs how Parliament should respond".
She said the DA's claims that the ANC caucus is shielding Ramaphosa and disrespecting Parliament is therefore not true.
"It is because we respect the decision of the National Assembly and the competency of the independent panel, that we disagree that an ad hoc committee should be set up as a parallel process. We respect the Section 89 process and it must be given space to conclude its work," she said.
READ | We've heard this before ... ANC shields Ramaphosa on Phala Phala as it did with Zuma
"We remain consistent that accountability and ensuring that when allegations are raised against the head of state, due process by competent institutions of the state be followed, is central in testing the veracity of any allegations.
"At the level of Parliament, Parliament needs to keep to the dictates of due process and evidence and not be swayed by the desires of any over enthusiastic political party on what they want the outcomes of a process to be.
"The DA motion was a rushed and opportunistic attempt to pre-empt ongoing and credible investigations, to try and achieve cheap political limelight and publicity at the expense of facts."
The Zondo Commission condemned the notion that Parliament can't investigate the executive while law enforcement agencies are also investigating.
Furthermore, Ramaphosa had conceded before the Zondo Commission that Parliament "dropped the ball".
The commission pressed Ramaphosa on this issue, and he conceded that "if you look with hindsight, I would say the two would not be mutually exclusive and, if anything, both checks [a parliamentary and police investigation] could easily have been followed".
In the commission's view, Parliament's duty to oversee the executive includes "a duty to investigate or enquire (or to take other reasonable and appropriate measures) where there is reasonable cause to suspect unconstitutional, unlawful or improper conduct on the part of a senior representative of the executive".
