Pretoria - The EFF has filed papers in the Constitutional Court opposing President Cyril Ramaphosa’s bid to review Parliament's section 89 panel report, which found there was prima facie evidence of “serious misconduct and gross violation of the Constitution” with regard to the president's alleged involvement in the stashing of millions in undeclared foreign currency on his Phala Phala farm in Limpopo.
The panel – consisting of former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, Thokozile Masipa and Mahlape Sello – was sanctioned by the National Assembly.
However, it was later overruled by MPs when the ANC used its majority in Parliament to avoid adopting the report, which could have paved the way for impeachment hearings against Ramaphosa.
In early December last year, Ramaphosa applied to the Constitutional Court for the review of the section 89 panel report shortly before his party re-elected him for a second term at its 55th national elective conference at Nasrec.
Ramaphosa has been hogging the headlines after he was accused of concealing a crime on his Limpopo farm, where millions of US dollars were allegedly stashed.
In court papers to the apex court, the EFF, represented by its deputy president, Floyd Shivambu, who deposed the affidavit, applied for leave to intervene in Ramaphosa’s bid to have the section 89 panel report reviewed and set aside.
The affidavit reads in part: “The EFF seeks leave to oppose the president’s application. It has not been included as one of the primary respondents in the president’s application, even though it has a manifest, clear and direct, substantial interest in the relief sought by the president. The EFF sought the president’s consent to intervene in the proceedings.
“Through its legal representatives, the EFF wrote to the presidential attorneys stating reasons why the EFF ought to be joined to these proceedings, and sought confirmation that the president would not oppose its application to be so joined.”
Shivambu further cited rule 8(1) of the court rules, which provide for the party’s intervention application, and alleged the EFF was “entitled” to join the main proceedings.
Shivambu added that EFF MPs had a constitutional duty to ensure Ramaphosa was held accountable.
The EFF also asked the court to find that any party opposing the application be ordered to pay costs, including the costs of two counsel, as well as alternative relief.
Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya could not be reached for comment.
However, Ramaphosa has since argued that he was not directly involved in running the farm.
Last year, Independent Media reported that United Democratic Movement leader Bantu Holomisa had accused Ramaphosa of abusing the courts to impede parliamentary oversight of the executive, after it was was revealed in a letter written to Ramaphosa’s lawyers, HNM Attorneys, by Holomisa’s legal representative, Mongezi Ntanga, that the UDM had threatened to file an urgent application to get Ramaphosa to include the UDM in his application to have the section 89 panel report set aside in the Constitutional Court.
It is understood that African Transformation Movement leader Vuyolwethu Zungula has also set his sights on opposing Ramaphosa’s application for a review of the panel’s report.
Other opposition parties have been calling for Ramaphosa to resign with immediate effect as the head of state, and be arrested in the wake of the “Farmgate” scandal.
These developments come amid another court case in which Ramaphosa is seeking to block former president Jacob Zuma from prosecuting him privately.
The former president has accused Ramaphosa of being an “accessory after the fact” following the alleged leaking by advocate Billy Downer and journalist Karyn Maughan of Zuma’s confidential medical information during his arms deal trial.
Pretoria News