The Phala Phala impeachment saga has plunged President Cyril Ramaphosa and fellow ANC office-bearer Thoko Didiza, the speaker of the National Assembly, into an unprecedented intra-party conflict as Didiza seeks to carry out her constitutional duty — to the detriment of the president’s interests.
Ramaphosa on Friday brought an urgent application for an interdict to halt the section 89 impeachment process in parliament, saying parliament cannot proceed until the judicial review he has sought of the 2022 Phala Phala panel’s report is complete.
The president sought an interdict after Didiza and Makashule Gana, the Rise Mzansi chair of the newly convened parliamentary impeachment committee, rejected Ramaphosa’s request that they put the process on ice pending the judicial review.
According to insiders, the president’s request caught the Didiza off guard. “The speaker had not had any prior engagement with the president on this issue and suddenly there was a demand that the process be halted,” one source said.
But well-placed parliamentary figures sympathetic to Didiza said she was unlikely to directly oppose the interdict application as opposition parties on the impeachment committee were expected to do so anyway.
“Each and every one of those parties on the impeachment committee can oppose that interdict,” one source said. “Because it’s no longer a matter of whether the speaker says there should be a committee or not. The committee has now been established; parties now have warm bodies there. So if they feel that their rights are now being limited in terms of the Constitutional Court order, they will go to court and challenge.”
We have never been in this position before, since 1994. It’s the first time in a democratic South Africa that a sitting president takes parliament to court on an interdict
— ANC insider
Insiders pointed out that Didiza’s hands are tied in terms of procedure.
“It’s one of those things where the speaker will have to act in the interests of the institution and the political parties there,” a source said. “There is a Constitutional Court order and that is the instrument that these parties rely on, and you cannot ignore that. Any attempt to dilly-dally will be viewed as a delaying tactic, so it will be within their right to also approach the court on an urgent basis to say this is a delaying tactic.
“We have never been in this position before, since 1994. It’s the first time in a democratic South Africa that a sitting president takes parliament to court on an interdict.”
ANC insiders said a political and legal showdown may be looming between Ramaphosa and the woman tasked with protecting parliament’s institutional integrity.
The Western Cape High Court issued directives last month setting timelines for the Phala Phala review proceedings, with the matter scheduled to be heard between September 2 and September 4. Parties wishing to oppose the review have until July 7 to file notice.
The Sunday Times understands that parliament’s lawyers were planning to meet tomorrow to discuss how Didiza should proceed.
ANC insiders said her refusal to immediately suspend parliamentary processes as requested by the president has shocked senior figures within the party and sparked speculation about whether she might also oppose Ramaphosa’s review application.
The president vs speaker standoff is unprecedented, and is further complicated by the fact that the ANC no longer has an absolute majority in parliament to ensure it gets its way.
“The concern is that [Didiza] is not approaching this politically,” said one senior ANC figure. “Many expected her to give the president space while the legal process unfolds. Instead, she appears to be approaching this from an institutional and parliamentary perspective.”
Another ANC insider said party leaders had expected Didiza to adopt a more accommodating position given the potentially devastating political consequences of an impeachment process.
“The [national executive committee] had stated that if she wants to respond to the review process, she would come in during part B, which is the actual review,” the source said. “This gives the president and the ANC time. To oppose the interdict would be detrimental to the ANC and the president.”
Ramaphosa’s court papers reveal that Didiza put her foot down after his legal team wrote to her at the beginning of the month, asking for the impeachment committee to halt proceedings against him. Didiza declined, saying the committee would proceed despite his court application, as the National Assembly was obliged to comply with a Constitutional Court judgment that ordered it should do so
As head of the National Assembly, Didiza is a central respondent in litigation involving the section 89 process, which stems from a parliamentary-appointed panel whose findings triggered the impeachment mechanism.
Any decision by her office to oppose Ramaphosa’s review or to halt parliamentary proceedings could significantly influence both the court case and the president’s political future.
Insiders close to Didiza insist she is not trying to harm Ramaphosa politically but is only trying to comply with constitutional obligations. They say her position is that parliament cannot abandon a process initiated in accordance with court judgments and constitutional requirements simply because it has become politically inconvenient.
Senior ANC figures, however, say her insistence on protecting parliament’s processes has unsettled some within the party who had expected a less confrontational posture.
Ramaphosa’s court papers reveal that Didiza put her foot down after his legal team wrote to her at the beginning of the month, asking for the impeachment committee to halt proceedings against him.
Didiza declined, saying the committee would proceed despite his court application, as the National Assembly was obliged to comply with a Constitutional Court judgment that ordered it should do so.
It is not clear how Didiza could have acceded to Ramaphosa’s request without deviating from parliamentary rules.
Her spokesperson, Reggie Ngcobo, confirmed that the speaker had received the president’s papers and was studying them.
Ramaphosa, in seeking to have the Phala Phala report set aside, argues that its findings are legally flawed. He contends that the panel — led by retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo — relied on hearsay evidence and allegedly used illegally obtained information.
“My attorneys wrote to the speaker on June 3 to request that while all preparatory work and administrative steps continue, the impeachment committee stay the impeachment inquiry ... pending the determination by this court of my review application,” Ramaphosa says in the papers.
“The speaker responded that committees of parliament determine their own working arrangements and agenda and forwarded by attorneys’ letter to the chairperson.”
Ramaphosa’s legal team also approached Gana, who also rejected the president’s request after taking advice from the office of the state attorney.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.