Lindsay Dentlinger26 November 2024 | 8:57

Phala Phala ConCourt battle: EFF presents case against Ramaphosa over stolen US dollars

The EFF’s legal representative, Advocate Kameel Premhid, says the independent panel that considered the evidence against President Ramaphosa acted as a sifting mechanism, playing that role as an extension of the National Assembly.

Phala Phala ConCourt battle: EFF presents case against Ramaphosa over stolen US dollars

EFF leader Julius Malema at Mary Fitzgerald Square, Johannesburg, 26 November 2024, ahead of the party's picket to the Constitutional Court. Picture: X/@EFFSouthAfrica

CAPE TOWN – The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) say President Cyril Ramaphosa hiding thousands of US dollars in a couch at his Limpopo farm is as problematic as his predecessor using State money to upgrade his KwaZulu-Natal residence in Nkandla.

The party has been setting out its case against the National Assembly (NA) in the Constitutional Court on Tuesday morning for rejecting a report on the Phala Phala saga in 2022.

The EFF believe the report should have led to impeachment proceedings against Ramaphosa. 

The party wants the court to either overturn the NA’s decision, or compel it to take the decision anew.

The EFF’s legal representative, Advocate Kameel Premhid, said the independent panel that considered the evidence against President Ramaphosa acted as a sifting mechanism, and played that role as an extension of the NA.

ALSO READ:

He argued there were shortcomings in the NA’s rules that allowed it to vote down a report that found a prima facie case to answer. 

“The National Assembly itself does not retain some type of overarching discretion that allows it to engage the panel’s report beyond the content of the panel’s report.”

The EFF said at the time of the vote, there was no evidence to support Ramaphosa and the African National Congress' (ANC) arguments that the report was fatally flawed. 

Neither has that report since been overturned on review. 

“To evidence how bad this report was, misunderstands and thus violates the role to be played by the National Assembly at the point of when prima facie evidence is considered.”

Arguments continue.