The Constitutional Court is set to deliver a ruling this Friday on whether the National Assembly acted rationally when it rejected a report detailing alleged misconduct by President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The case centers on a December 2022 vote where Parliament voted 214 to 148 against adopting the Section 89 Independent Panel Report. This report had found prima facie evidence that the President may have violated his oath of office.
The Legal Battle Over Parliamentary Discretion
The EFF and the African Transformation Movement (ATM) argue that the National Assembly’s decision to reject the report was irrational and served as an attempt to shield the President.
Conversely, the National Assembly maintains it acted within its discretionary powers. It argues that the courts should not interfere with internal parliamentary decisions to uphold the separation of powers.
Allegations of Cover-Ups and Misconduct
The controversy stems from a February 2020 burglary at the Phala Phala farm. Arthur Fraser, the former head of the State Security Agency, filed a criminal complaint at the Rosebank police station regarding the incident.
Fraser alleged that approximately $4 million was stolen—a figure later contested by the President, who stated the amount was $580,000. Fraser further claimed the money was not declared to the Reserve Bank.
According to Fraser’s 2022 affidavit, the incident was not reported to the police. Instead, he alleges President Ramaphosa instructed Major General Wally Rhoode of the Presidential Protection Unit to lead a secret investigation.
Fraser claims Rhoode assembled a team of former SAPS members, Crime Intelligence officials, and a local farmer to retrieve the funds. He further alleges that suspects were kidnapped and interrogated on the property and that a domestic worker was paid R150,000 for her silence.
Findings of the Independent Panel
The panel, led by retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, concluded in November 2022 that there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have committed serious violations of the law and the Constitution.
The report stated that the President acted in a manner inconsistent with his office and exposed himself to a conflict between official responsibilities and private business interests.
The panel also found that the President potentially violated the Constitution by engaging in paid work through his farming business and should answer for the use of state resources for a secret investigation without a registered case docket.
Potential Legal Violations
Fraser has alleged that the possession of undisclosed foreign currency in furniture constitutes prima facie proof of money laundering under Section 4 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act No. 121 of 1998.
He further suggested the conduct may contravene Section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act no 62 of 1955, regarding the unexplained possession of suspected stolen goods and violations of currency and exchange control laws.
Fraser argued that payments to suspects and the domestic worker may constitute corruption under the Prevention of Corrupt Activities Act and were intended to obstruct the course of justice.
What May Happen Next
If the Constitutional Court finds the National Assembly’s rejection was irrational, it could lead to a requirement for Parliament to reconsider the report’s findings.
A ruling in favor of the EFF and ATM may potentially reopen the path toward an impeachment inquiry, as suggested by the original panel report.
However, if the court upholds the National Assembly’s decision, it may reinforce the principle of separation of powers regarding internal parliamentary proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Constitutional Court ruling on Friday about?
The court is ruling on the rationality of the National Assembly’s December 2022 decision to reject the Section 89 Independent Panel Report.
What did the Section 89 panel find regarding President Ramaphosa?
The panel found prima facie evidence that the President may have violated his oath of office, acted inconsistently with his office, and potentially violated the Constitution through his farming business.
What are the specific allegations made by Arthur Fraser?
Fraser alleges a cover-up of a farm burglary, the use of state resources for a secret investigation, the kidnapping and interrogation of suspects, and the payment of a domestic worker to ensure silence.
Do you believe the separation of powers should prevent courts from reviewing parliamentary votes on executive conduct?