However, in a brief order on Wednesday, the ConCourt said that “no case has been made for exclusive jurisdiction or direct access”. The case must therefore be dismissed, it said. It made no order on costs.
Addressing the media at the Union Buildings, Magwenyaa said the judgment dealt with a procedural matter with respect to the president seeking direct access to the Constitutional Court.
“The judgment does not pronounce on the merits of the case,” he said. “It just says there is no case for the ConCourt to be petitioned directly. I have heard some say that it is a blow to the president. It’s not a blow to the president. It is just a procedural issue in so far as whether the president was correct in petitioning the ConCourt directly. Our view is that he was correct in doing so because the matter concerned a report that was seized with the conduct of the president and our view is that ConCourt was the right court to hear the matter.
“That report remains flawed and needs to be challenged. You may include a continued challenge to that report.”
Magwenya rejected the notion that Ramaphosa was taking parliament to court.
“The president petitioned the Constitutional Court to review the section 89 report. The assertion around taking parliament to court was a political suggestion by some which has no merit whatsoever.
“It's quite important that we do get clarification around how theses processes are managed in future ... that's important, not only for the president but also for the future stability of the office of the president that that report is reviewed.”
He said parliament rejected the report for the same reasons that Ramaphosa was taking the report on review.
“We will reject any assertion that the president is taking parliament to court. He is taking a flawed report on review.”
TimesLIVE
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
Phala Phala ConCourt ruling not a setback for Ramaphosa: Presidency
Image: GCIS.
President Cyril Ramaphosa is considering his legal options after the Constitutional Court rejected his bid to challenge the section 89 independent panel report which recommended that he has a case to answer on the Phala Phala farm scandal.
“What will happen now is that the legal team will convene and map the way forward and consider the options. It is not necessarily a blow and it’s not a judgment on the substance and merit of the case,” said Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya on Wednesday.
The apex court dismissed Ramaphosa’s application to set aside an independent panel’s report to parliament recommending he had a case to answer for possible serious violations of the constitution and the law over the scandal.
The ConCourt said Ramaphosa had not made a case for going directly to the apex court.
In seeking to set aside the report, Ramaphosa went to the ConCourt on the basis that his application was within its exclusive jurisdiction.
He said this was because when the independent panel was conducting its preliminary inquiry, it was fulfilling a constitutional obligation of parliament. And in terms of the constitution, only the apex court may decide whether parliament has failed to fulfil a constitutional obligation, he said. Alternatively, he argued that it was in the interests of justice to be granted direct access to the highest court.
Phala Phala: Ramaphosa’s request for direct access to ConCourt denied
However, in a brief order on Wednesday, the ConCourt said that “no case has been made for exclusive jurisdiction or direct access”. The case must therefore be dismissed, it said. It made no order on costs.
Addressing the media at the Union Buildings, Magwenyaa said the judgment dealt with a procedural matter with respect to the president seeking direct access to the Constitutional Court.
“The judgment does not pronounce on the merits of the case,” he said. “It just says there is no case for the ConCourt to be petitioned directly. I have heard some say that it is a blow to the president. It’s not a blow to the president. It is just a procedural issue in so far as whether the president was correct in petitioning the ConCourt directly. Our view is that he was correct in doing so because the matter concerned a report that was seized with the conduct of the president and our view is that ConCourt was the right court to hear the matter.
“That report remains flawed and needs to be challenged. You may include a continued challenge to that report.”
Magwenya rejected the notion that Ramaphosa was taking parliament to court.
“The president petitioned the Constitutional Court to review the section 89 report. The assertion around taking parliament to court was a political suggestion by some which has no merit whatsoever.
“It's quite important that we do get clarification around how theses processes are managed in future ... that's important, not only for the president but also for the future stability of the office of the president that that report is reviewed.”
He said parliament rejected the report for the same reasons that Ramaphosa was taking the report on review.
“We will reject any assertion that the president is taking parliament to court. He is taking a flawed report on review.”
TimesLIVE
Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
READ MORE:
Courts cannot review Phala Phala report — EFF asks ConCourt to throw out Ramaphosa’s case
Parliament shrugs off ATM court papers opposing vote on Phala Phala
LISTEN | Farmgate — Ramaphosa emerges unscathed
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.
Most read
Latest Videos