POLL | Do you agree with the Phala Phala panel change?

28 September 2022 - 13:00
subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now
A candidate has been replaced in the panel investigating whether President Cyril Ramaphosa has a case to answer in parliament for the Phala Phala saga. File photo.
A candidate has been replaced in the panel investigating whether President Cyril Ramaphosa has a case to answer in parliament for the Phala Phala saga. File photo.
Image: Alaister Russell/The Sunday Times

South Africans have weighed in on University of Cape Town law professor Richard Calland’s decision to quit a panel to determine whether President Cyril Ramaphosa has a case to answer in parliament for the Phala Phala saga.

Calland was earlier this month appointed alongside retired high court judge Thokozile Masipa and retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo as chair.

His inclusion was challenged by opposition parties who questioned his impartiality and claimed he had shown a “consistent bias towards the president, which makes him unsuitable for this role”.

Parliament speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula informed the parties this week she had withdrawn Calland’s name from the panel after speaking to him.

“Having taken into account all relevant factors, it appears Prof Calland’s appointment may, in his own words, ‘clutter or otherwise impair’ the process. Therefore I have decided to withdraw his appointment. A third panelist will be appointed from among the nominations received by parties,” Mapisa-Nqakula said in a letter to DA parliamentary chief whip Siviwe Gwarube.

Former state capture evidence leader Mahlape Sello was announced as his replacement.

While some welcomed the decision, others said it set a dangerous precedent.

Calland said he had accepted the decision to withdraw his name from the panel, but denied claims of bias.

“As a trained lawyer, I am capable of assessing the evidence and reaching conclusions based on an impartial application of the relevant law or rules without fear or favour. I would do so regardless of anything I have said or written in the past in my role as a political commentator.”

He told Eusebius McKaiser his main consideration for accepting the nomination 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. He said he was satisfied he had met the criteria.

He said allegations of bias by the EFF fell short of the “reasonableness” standard for recusal.

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


subscribe Just R20 for the first month. Support independent journalism by subscribing to our digital news package.
Subscribe now

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Speech Bubbles

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.