Phala Phala panel: It’s not about who you have there, but the process you follow – says analyst

The African Transformation Movement’s (ATM) move to have President Cyril Ramaphosa ousted in terms of section 89 of the constitution is picking up speed, but the independence of a proposed panel to oversee the inquiry into his fitness is being questioned.

On Wednesday, National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula announced that former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo will chair the panel.

Judge Thokozile Masipa, a former judge of the High Court in Johannesburg, and professor Richard Calland, associate professor of public law at the University of Cape Town, will form part of the panel.

But the announcement has not gone down well, with the ATM, Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the Democratic Alliance (DA) raising concerns about Calland as they claim he is seen as supporting the president.

ALSO READ: Phala Phala panel: Meet the people who will pass judgement on Ramaphosa

However, political analyst Dr Ralph Mathekga said Calland did not appoint himself and the person who appointed him had thought about the ramifications.

“It’s not like he will work alone and chair this thing. It is not about who you have there, it is all about the process you follow and how much justification you provide,” Mathekga said.

“It does not matter if they are saying he must be impeached or not, what people should be pointing at is the justification that would have been followed and how clear and transparent the inquiry has been.”

Mathekga said the legitimacy of any result depended on the credibility of the processes and if the panel finds that the president should not be impeached, political parties would be unreasonable to say they expected that.

“I do not understand why people say ‘we know this one will push for no impeachment or impeachment’. We cannot predict the results based on an individual. They have people of integrity and the results will most likely be legitimate.”

He added that even if the panel decided the president should be impeached, he would still have to go through the impeachment process which he might survive.

ATM president Vuyolwethu Zungula said the party was concerned about the independence of Calland as “he is known to be pro-Ramaphosa through and through”. Zungula said they would try to determine who made nominations for the panel.

“We know the nominations for the DA [Democratic Alliance], ANC and the other nine opposition parties. We are just doing research as to who might have made nominations for the other ones,” he said.

“If they were not nominated from the start it raises questions about why those who weren’t nominated were on the panel.”

The EFF said Mapisa-Nqakula had essentially spat in the face of South Africans by appointing people who were not nominated by at least one of nine opposition political parties represented in parliament.

DA chief whip Siviwe Gwarube said the DA has no concerns about the members of the judiciary who have been appointed, but they were not convinced of Calland’s objectivity and independence. Gwarube said Calland has ,through his political commentary and social media pronouncements, displayed a consistent bias towards the president which made him unsuitable for this role given that this panel must be free from any hint of bias.

“The inquiry needs panel members able to objectively assess whether there is prima facie evidence that the president has contravened the law and whether impeachment proceedings should be instituted by parliament.”

ALSO READ: Malema denies bullying Public Protector’s office, but demands Phala Phala report

She said the objectivity of the panel was the only way to ensure this process was not rendered useless.

“If this assessment by the panel is compromised – whether in practice or in perception – it will mean the entire exercise cannot be taken seriously,” she added.

---

Info

Constitution rules

Section 89 of the constitution states:

• Removal of president (1)
• The National Assembly by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of at least two thirds of its members may remove the president from office
• But only on the grounds of (a) a serious violation of the constitution or the law;
• (b) serious misconduct; or
• (c) inability to perform the functions of office.
• (2) Anyone who has been removed from the office of president in terms of subsection (1) (a) or (6) may not receive any benefits of that office and may not serve in any public office.