Ramaphosa must have his day in court if there's evidence he may have transgressed law - ATM
It's questioning the constitutionality of a parliamentary rule before the country’s highest court which allowed the National Assembly to circumvent a Section 89 impeachment process against a president.
FILE: President Cyril Ramaphosa engaging with members of the media following his Oral Reply to questions to the nation on various national developments during the hybrid sitting of the National Council of Provinces held at the National Council of Provinces in Cape Town on 12 September 2024. Picture: GCIS
CAPE TOWN - The African Transformation Movement (ATM) said that, like ordinary citizens, the president must have his day in court if there's evidence that he may have transgressed the law.
It's questioning the constitutionality of a parliamentary rule before the country’s highest court which allowed the National Assembly to circumvent a Section 89 impeachment process against a president.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and ATM are challenging a decision by the National Assembly in December 2022 to dismiss an independent panel report that considered evidence related to the 2020 burglary at President Cyril Ramaphosa's Phala Phala farm.
ALSO READ:
• Malema: EFF founding manifesto demands we fight against corruption
• Phala Phala ConCourt battle: EFF presents case against Ramaphosa over stolen US dollars
• EFF marches over Phala Phala: 'We are highlighting the corruption of ANC and Ramaphosa' - Malema
The ATM said it could not accept the president and the African National Congress (ANC)'s reasons for rubbishing a report by three jurists, including former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo.
The ATM's legal representative, advocate Anton Katz, said it was the "height of irrationality" for the ANC to dismiss the report because other investigations outside of Parliament were still pending at the time.
"Now I ask this court, what have the Hawks got to do with this case, what does the reserve bank got to do with this case, what does SARS have to do with the case, what does the Public Protector have to do with this case? Nothing. They are not involved in impeachment."
Katz said the debate over whether the panel relied on prima facie or sufficient evidence was merely a red herring.
"If we stand back, and look at the elephant in the room. What’s the elephant in the room? A couch with five hundred thousand dollars there, unaccounted for. And we all just turn a face to that. That’s what the elephant in the room is."
The hearing continues.