Babalo Ndenze25 October 2024 | 11:36

National Assembly Speaker says EFF's Phala Phala request is in the hands of ConCourt

The Constitutional Court meanwhile has set down November 26 to hear the EFF's application to set aside Parliament's decision not to refer Ramaphosa to an impeachment inquiry.

National Assembly Speaker says EFF's Phala Phala request is in the hands of ConCourt

Phala Phala.

CAPE TOWN - National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza says the Economic Freedom Fighters’s (EFF) request for parliament to re-establish Phala Phala proceedings is in the hands of the Constitutional Court.

She says as things stand, parliament can’t accede to the EFF’s request to set up a section 89 inquiry to remove President Cyril Ramaphosa after the 6th administration rejected the motion.

The Constitutional Court meanwhile has set down November 26 to hear the EFF's application to set aside parliament's decision not to refer Ramaphosa to an impeachment inquiry.

In her communication to the EFF, Speaker Thoko Didiza says section 89 states that a member who wishes to initiate a section 89 inquiry must submit a motion with attached evidence.

Thereafter the speaker establishes an independent panel to conduct a preliminary assessment of the evidence and make recommendations whether sufficient evidence exists to support the charges.

But Didiza says the independent panel the eff refers to was considered on the 13th of December 2022 and the house agreed not to proceed with a section 89 inquiry.

READ: Ramaphosa confident ConCourt will absolve him on Phala Phala

“The panel report was rejected and did not lapse at the end of 6th parliament, as suggested by your (EFF) draft resolution,” writes Didiza.

Furthermore, she said, an impeachment committee is established once the independent panel report is approved, “and not as a consequence of a resolution calling for its establishment”.

Didiza notes that the EFF has sought relief from the Constitutional Court, arguing that the decision to reject the independent panel report and vote against establishing a Section 89 inquiry was irrational.

She says if the apex court agrees, the question will be brought to the house again for reconsideration.