PODCAST | Richard Calland answers questions about the Phala Phala panel

Listen here: 

University of Cape Town law professor Richard Calland is no longer going to serve on the panel tasked with a preliminary inquiry into a motion in terms of section 89 of the Constitution. The motion relates to the Phala Phala controversy around President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Some political parties had objected to Calland’s appointment on the basis he is allegedly politically biased in favour of Ramaphosa.

Calland spoke to Eusebius McKaiser to explain his decision to accept the judgment of the speaker of parliament that “it is in the best interest of the parliamentary process” for him to no longer be a part of the panel.

McKaiser asked Calland what considerations he took into account when he was told about his nomination, and in deciding whether to accept it.

Calland explained his main consideration was whether he could, as a trained lawyer, assess the issues fairly, independently and without bias, even as someone who has been a public intellectual and commentator for more than 20 years. Having satisfied himself that he met these criteria, he accepted the nomination.

When pushed by McKaiser about perceived bias, Calland insisted that after social media criticism as well as a formal complaint by the EFF communicated to the speaker of parliament, he seriously reflected on what critics had said.

The standard he applied when reflecting on the criticisms was the same he would apply in a judicial request for recusal. Calland claimed each purported proof of his alleged bias from the EFF fell short of the “reasonableness” standard for recusal, and he could articulate how each piece of “evidence”, which are essentially references to his work as an analyst, drew inferences, from past columns for example, that do not justify a “reasonable apprehension of bias” in the appointment to the panel. 

When asked to be absolutely clear by the podcast host, Calland said he “unambiguously” maintained he is not biased and cannot be reasonably perceived to be biased, but as a “constitutional democrat” he did not wish for attention to be diverted from the real issues if he stayed on the panel.

The second part of the discussion was a broader debate about the role of commentators, analysts and journalists, and whether they can or should wear many hats, or each choose a narrow, singular role in the life of our democracy. This was a discussion that requires further examination, but one which listeners may find helpful when debating the role of the commentariat in our democracy. 

To listen to previous episodes, go here.

Subscribe for free future episodes: iono.fm, Spotify, Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Player.fm, Pocket Cast

Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.