‘Phala Phala expert panel report set the bar too low to impeach a sitting president’: Lamola

The section 89 independent panel report on the Phala Phala farm robbery set the bar too low for an impeachment to commence against President Cyril Ramaphosa.

This is what minister of justice & correctional services Ronald Lamola told MPs on Tuesday during a National Assembly debate on the report, which found Ramaphosa may have an impeachable case to answer over the theft of millions at his Phala Phala farm.

LISTEN | Ramaphosa wins vote, but parties accuse ANC of betraying accountability

“How do we adopt this report that did not conclude to get sufficient evidence to start the process to impeach a sitting president? The panel’s report has set the bar too low to impeach a sitting president,” said Lamola, who received a standing ovation from his colleagues after his debate.

Lamola was among the MPs set to vote in parliament on whether to adopt the section 89 Phala Phala report. The process will decide whether Ramaphosa will face impeachment proceedings.

A majority of 201 votes is needed to pass the adoption of the report — if all 400 MPs are present. The ANC has 230 MPs, while all other opposition parties have a combined 170.

Earlier, TimesLIVE reported National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula declined requests to reconsider her decision to not allow a secret ballot as a voting procedure on the report.

Lamola said the panel concluded prima facie and insufficient evidence was the same.

“It cannot be the same,” said Lamola, explaining sufficient evidence is a higher standard than prima facie.

“That’s why when you go into the constitution, it speaks about the removal of the public protector, and when it speaks about the removal of the president, it speaks about the impeachment of a president.”

There must be concrete evidence and no doubt must be cast to start the impeachment.

He asked DA leader John Steenhuisen and the ATM’s Vuyo Zungula to allow their members to vote against the adoption of the report because there is not sufficient evidence to impeach Ramaphosa.

“What is being said and used here is just to blackmail the ANC that the ANC does not want its members. The ANC has always been a constitutional organisation and an organisation that respects the constitution of this country.”

Ramaphosa was being held to account because of the constitution, he said.  

“We are here to hold all members of the executive accountable because of the constitution. We are not running away from the debate. If the president wanted to run away from the debate, he would have interdicted the debate, but he took the matter on review to show he has got grounds and does not agree with the report.”

This, he said, does not stop parliament from debating the matter.

“There is nothing untoward, and you cannot blackmail us to agree with you that it will only be accountability if it accepts there must be an impeachment process. Even if there is no impeachment process, it is accountability.”

Accountability is scrutinising the report, and “we say the report cannot stand”, he said to a standing ovation from his colleagues.

However, he said the debate was not about “character-assassinating the individuals who compiled the report”.

Ramaphosa, he said, had every right to take the report on review, and his decision must be respected. “As the ANC, we do not agree with the adoption of the report.”

He said in terms of the rules adopted by parliament, an impeachment process can commence if enough evidence exists, and this was not the case.

Law enforcement agencies must be allowed to conclude their investigations.

“This panel could have said we are going to wait for these findings if they felt they did not have the power and the time. Just like [chief justice Raymond] Zondo did, they could have requested parliament to extend like they did once. Zondo requested many times until we got tired, and we respected this because he wanted to produce a quality report.

“This panel could have done the same. They did once to the speaker, and they were granted. If they needed further information, we would not be sitting here doubting the process, content and outcomes of the panel.”

ANC chief whip Pemmy Majodina agreed with Lamola, saying any decision to establish an impeachment committee would be premature, based on what is provided for in the preliminary findings.

“The ANC calls upon the institutions of the state investigating the Phala Phala matter to speedily conclude their investigations for parliament to have a legitimate basis for considering whether or not we proceed with an impeachment committee.”  

The ANC will not “attack or criticise” the panel, however. She said there were eight state institutions investigating the Phala Phala scandal, and they should be given the time to provide evidence into what transpired at the farm.

“A great deal of the material before the panel is hearsay. Key players are relied upon. No affidavit or sworn testimony is provided.”

This, she said, is where the “fundamental weakness” lies.

“The trigger for the impeachment process must be verifiable evidence that can form the basis upon which a parliament process can be undertaken.

"The essence of the ANC argument is that we should allow the state agencies the time and space to provide the necessary evidence, if it is there, which then can be used as a trigger to initiate an impeachment committee process and not on an independent panel which casts doubt and limitations to its own findings.”

`She said the party noted Ramaphosa had taken the report on review, and this does not stop parliament from debating the matter.

TimesLIVE

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