Cape Town - Parliament is yet to take decisive steps to uncover the truth about President Cyril Ramaphosa’s international Phala Phala farm robbery scandal, as a second attempt by opposition parties to have the head of state be held accountable has been unsuccessful.
All eyes remain on Ramaphosa as the nation eagerly awaits to learn the truth about millions of US dollars allegedly “concealed” in furniture that were subsequently stolen by a gang who broke into his Limpopo farm two years ago.
National Assembly Speaker, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula at the weekend confirmed she had declined a request by DA leader John Steenhuisen to set up an ad hoc committee to investigate allegations of theft at Ramaphosa’s game farm.
She also declined a motion by the African Transformation Movement’s (ATM) to remove the president in terms of section 89 of the Constitution.
Her reasons for declining Steenhuisen’s request, Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said: “The Speaker declined the request arguing that Rule 253 sets out requirements for the establishment of an ad hoc committee, and one of them is the performance of a specific task. While the request proposes a committee on Phala Phala, it goes on to list various distinct tasks for investigation. In the nature of the proposed investigation, this is understandable. However, some of the tasks proposed are arguably, still within the purview of other entities or institutions, including law enforcement, and may indeed necessitate Parliament’s attention in due course. At this stage, the various components raised by Mr Steenhuisen for parliamentary intervention are better suited for attention by the existing parliamentary oversight structures.”
In terms of the ATM request, Mothapo added: “In her letter to Mr Vuyo Zungula of the ATM, the Speaker explained that from reading his submission, she was unable to determine which of the listed grounds in section 89(1) was he relying on. In terms of Rule 129A (1) (a)(i) to (iii), the motion must be limited to a clearly formulated and substantiated charge on the grounds specified in Section 89 of the Constitution. The Speaker has accordingly advised Mr Zungula to ensure clearly formulated grounds on which his motion relies. The services of the Office of Secretary to the NA have in this regard been made available to assist with the technical formulation of the motion, should such assistance be required.”
In response to the outcome of his request, Steenhuisen accused Parliament of protecting Ramaphosa.
“The Speaker of the National Assembly, refusal to establish an ad-hoc committee in terms of Rule 253 (1)(b), to investigate allegations surrounding the theft of, in excess of $4 million from President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala residence in February 2020, is a direct and deliberate move by Parliament to shield the executive, and the president himself, from the accountability required of them in our constitutional democracy.
“Once again Parliament is standing by and watching while our head of state is mired in serious allegations of theft, kidnapping, and the abuse of state resources – allegations which taint the Office of the Presidency and could render President Ramaphosa wholly unfit to hold public office.”
He said the DA would be considering its legal options to challenge the Speaker’s decision, based on Rule 253 (1)(b).
The ATM added that it would resubmit its request.
“The Speaker has not declined the ATM’s s89 motion to remove Ramaphosa. She wants further details. She has basically asked the ATM to match the transgressions to particular paragraphs of s89(1). Ramaphosa has violated the entire s89(1). The ATM will comply and resubmit,” the party said.
Parliament’s role is to investigate political accountability, said political analyst Professor Sipho Seepe.
“The first thing we must understand is that Parliament is the political forum where there is facilitating political contestation in the democracy. There is an expectation that speakers of Houses should be objective but they cannot be expected to be neutral, they also belong to a political party, so you would see political leanings. This applies to all parties, it does not matter who is in charge,” the academic said.
“Second, there is the aspect she raises about the use of resources that can be better used and deployed because there are multiple investigations into this matter. One must understand the nature of each investigation is going to be different. For example the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) would be looking at irregularity, illegality and criminality. The public protector would be looking at ethics not criminality.”
“Parliament would look at it from the perspective of political accountability, so nothing should prevent a multiplicity of eyes. What the DA and ATM need to do is respond to her question. They must rise to the occasion and motivate what would make this investigation different from what other agencies are looking at. They must make their case,” Seepe said.
Cape Times