PHALA PHALA: Ramaphosa testimony splits impeachment committee — key decisions kicked down the road

President Cyril Ramaphosa's testimony has become a focal point of contention within Parliament’s impeachment committee, with diverging views among political factions delaying critical decisions. The committee chairperson, Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana, has called for political parties to reach consensus on the terms of reference ahead of the upcoming meeting, citing the need for legal clarity regarding whether the President can be compelled to testify. Meanwhile, the Western Cape High Court is expected to rule on Ramaphosa’s interdict application for a stay in impeachment proceedings, with the judgment anticipated on Friday. Ramaphosa seeks to suspend the parliamentary committee’s proceedings until the resolution of his challenge against the Section 89 report, which alleged involvement in the forex theft from sofa cushions at his private Phala Phala game farm. The outcome of this legal battle will shape the trajectory of the impeachment process. In Parliament, the draft terms of reference allow for the President to testify either in person or via a representative, with no adverse inference drawn if he chooses not to appear personally. However, several opposition parties argue that personal testimony is essential for accountability. MK Party, EFF, ActionSA, and the African Transformation Movement (ATM) have insisted that Ramaphosa must testify in person. ATM leader Vuyolwethu Zungula emphasized that an inquiry into the President should include direct evidence, stating that failure to do so would undermine the integrity of the process. Zungula, who initiated the impeachment motion following criminal charges against Ramaphosa, stressed that the public expects transparency and accountability. Similarly, MK party parliamentary leader John Hlophe asserted that the President cannot provide testimony through an intermediary, warning that refusal to appear in person would carry an adverse inference akin to judicial standards. Hlophe’s stance found backing from ACDP MP and lawyer Steve Swart, who described the impeachment proceedings as a “serious accountability exercise.” Swart contended that the current terms of reference, which permit no adverse inference if the President does not testify in person, are legally flawed. His argument aligns with broader calls for adherence to established legal principles during the inquiry. EFF MP Omphile Maotwe echoed these sentiments, expressing strong opposition to the idea of the President testifying through representatives. She warned that allowing such a scenario would fail both the people of South Africa and the mandate of elected officials to hold the executive accountable. In contrast, the Democratic Alliance (DA) and Freedom Front Plus have chosen silence in this debate, while the African National Congress (ANC) has taken a more measured approach. ANC MP Faith Muthambi supported Gana’s request for legal clarity on the President’s right to remain silent, emphasizing the importance of due process. Additionally, the ANC backed a 48-hour extension for deliberations on the terms of reference and the selection of evidence leaders. ANC MP Cameron Dugmore highlighted the party’s strategic reliance on a two-pronged approach, rooted in the May 2026 Constitutional Court judgment that reinstated the impeachment proceedings. This judgment, particularly its paragraphs 136 to 141, forms the basis of the ANC’s strategy to safeguard Ramaphosa. These sections outline findings from the Public Protector, the joint standing committee on intelligence, the South African Reserve Bank, and the South African Revenue Service (SARS), all of which concluded that Ramaphosa did not contravene laws. The ANC’s plan involves re-examining these determinations alongside assessments from the prosecution services, which charged individuals connected to the Phala Phala farm incident. This dual approach reflects the ANC’s intent to shield Ramaphosa while ensuring procedural fairness. As the impeachment committee prepares for its next steps, the unresolved dispute over the President’s testimony underscores the deepening divisions within South Africa’s political landscape. With the court’s ruling pending and political stances entrenched, the path forward remains uncertain, leaving key decisions postponed for further deliberation.