Ramaphosa cites schoolboy suspension case in bid to overturn Phala Phala report

President Cyril Ramaphosa has cited a controversial schoolboy suspension case in his legal battle to overturn the findings of the Phala Phala report, which triggered his impeachment inquiry. His legal team, led by advocate Wim Trengove SC, used a recent ruling from the Western Cape High Court to argue that Ramaphosa’s application to set aside the report was not premature, despite the ongoing parliamentary impeachment proceedings. The Phala Phala report, issued in November 2022, concluded that there was sufficient evidence to charge Ramaphosa with four counts of misconduct related to the alleged theft of approximately $580,000 in cash hidden in furniture at his game farm in Limpopo. The report was compiled by an independent panel chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo. It recommended that the National Assembly initiate a public impeachment inquiry, which could ultimately lead to Ramaphosa’s removal from office. In court, Trengove referenced a case involving a schoolboy who challenged his suspension from class. He argued that the court had ruled that the suspension could significantly impact the student’s future, potentially leading to expulsion and casting doubt on his social standing. Applying this logic to Ramaphosa’s situation, Trengove emphasized that the public humiliation resulting from the impeachment inquiry posed a far greater threat to the president’s reputation and dignity. The court session, presided over by a full bench including Judge President Nolwazi Mabindla-Boqwana, Judge Mark Sher, and Judge Ncumisa Mayosi, saw arguments continue into Thursday. Advocates for the respondents, including Adv Anton Katz SC representing the ATM, contended that courts should not intervene in an incomplete parliamentary process unless grave injustice was demonstrated. Katz noted that Ramaphosa’s court documents failed to meet this threshold. Mabindla-Boqwana raised a critical point during the proceedings, asking Trengove to explain the distinction between the harm caused by public allegations and the harm of the president facing an impeachment hearing. Trengove responded that while both forms of harm existed, the latter carried a more severe weight. He explained that the public scrutiny and accusations of unconstitutional behavior inflicted upon the president were particularly damaging, affecting his personal and political standing. Furthermore, Trengove argued that the independent panel had misinterpreted the criteria for impeachment. According to parliamentary rules, a president can only be impeached for conduct that is deliberate and in bad faith. He asserted that the panel had incorrectly applied these standards, thereby undermining the legal protections afforded to the presidency. As the legal battle unfolds, the court is expected to deliver a decision that could either uphold or dismiss Ramaphosa’s request to set aside the Phala Phala report. The outcome will likely influence the trajectory of the impeachment inquiry and the broader political landscape in South Africa. The case continues to unfold, with further arguments scheduled for Friday.