ANC: Zumajev škandal Nkandla nas je v letu 2016 stal glasov, Phala Phala pa ne bo

The chair of South Africa's Impeachment Committee, Makashule Gana, has submitted a list of potential evidence leaders to Constitutional Legal Services to confirm the availability of senior counsel for the upcoming proceedings. This development comes amid ongoing legal battles involving President Cyril Ramaphosa, whose administration is seeking an interdict to halt the impeachment process until after a judicial review of the independent panel report on the Phala Phala scandal is concluded. The review is anticipated to be heard in September. The legal dispute unfolded in the Western Cape High Court, where a full bench of three judges, André le Grange, Matthew Francis, and Diane Davis, heard arguments over the validity of Ramaphosa's request. President Ramaphosa's legal representative, Advocate Wim Trengove SC, emphasized that while there may be a prima facie case, the central issue revolves around the sufficiency of evidence presented in the panel report. Trengove argued that the report lacked adequate evidence to support its findings, despite acknowledging that the panel considered the president's affidavit. Judge le Grange countered this by noting that the panel report did incorporate the president's affidavit but did not adequately weigh the evidence. He suggested that suggesting a review of the report was unfair, given that it gained prominence only after legal actions initiated by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM). Judge Francis addressed concerns about potential harm to the president's reputation, asserting that the Section 89 rule is designed for the benefit of the people of South Africa and must be considered alongside the issue of harm. He questioned how long the matter could be prolonged without providing a definitive statement to the public, indicating that any potential embarrassment would be part of the president's responsibilities. Advocate Anton Katz SC, representing the MK Party, pointed out that the president's request for an injunction was not within the court's jurisdiction. He highlighted that the impeachment committee had already begun its work in May, and the interdict application was filed on June 12. Trengove clarified that the president sought only to halt the hearing of evidence, not the entire process. Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, representing the EFF, challenged the notion of irreparable harm, questioning the speculative nature of the president's claims. He argued that the court should not intervene based on undefined harm, emphasizing the need for clear criteria before taking action. As the court prepares to deliver its judgment by the end of the week, Gana expressed the committee's resolve to continue its proceedings unless a competent court orders otherwise. She noted that the committee had completed preparatory tasks, including appointing evidence leaders and finalizing witness preparations. Despite the legal challenges, the committee remains committed to moving forward with its schedule. The Phala Phala scandal, involving the alleged theft of approximately $580,000 from the president's private game farm in Limpopo, has become a major political crisis during Ramaphosa's tenure. Opposition parties have used this incident to demand greater accountability from the president. However, the ANC has drawn parallels to the previous Nkandla scandal involving former President Jacob Zuma, which significantly impacted the party's performance in the 2016 local elections. According to ANC Johannesburg regional secretary Sasabona Manganye, the Nkandla scandal contributed to the party's loss in the 2016 elections. However, he believes that the current situation surrounding Phala Phala is different, as there are existing mechanisms in place to ensure accountability. Mangayne stated that the ANC's renewal program aims to rebuild public trust in the party and improve service delivery, rather than merely addressing internal challenges. He emphasized that the processes currently underway will determine whether any wrongdoing occurred in relation to the Phala Phala incident.