Delays in Phala Phala saga will allow Ramaphosa and ANC time to regroup

Chess is full of them. There’s the English one, the Dutch one and the Sicilian one. There’s the Hedgehog and the Monkey’s Bum. However, the greatest of all defences – at least in political chess – is homegrown.

It’s the Stalingrad defence, the favourite move of a certain disgraced former president, decried by the game’s cognoscenti for years as unsportsmanlike.

Now, shrugging off the previous sneers of disapproval, this maverick play has been embraced by its former critics. The seal of mainstream approval by players, officials and spectators was its adoption by the despised Jacob Zuma’s successor to the land’s highest office, President Cyril Ramaphosa.

It’s Zuma trusty Stalingrad defence – using the legal process to impede the legal process. The move came after the parliamentary Section 89 panel’s inquiry found that Ramaphosa might have committed various impeachable offences related to the foreign currency shenanigans on his Phala Phala game farm.

ALSO READ: Phala Phala: Will ANC NEC changed its mind in backing Ramaphosa?

The finding caused consternation. The consensus view appeared to be that if Ramaphosa were to be forced out of office, the country would be stuffed.

Not because Ramaphosa was innocent, you understand. Not because it would derail his policies or negate his promises, but because it would open the door to the Zuma-backing radical economic transformation (RET) faction to have another turn at state looting.

Ramaphosa’s initial response to the panel’s findings was a feint. He threatened resignation. Then, in response to the warnings that the republic would be destroyed if he abdicated, Ramaphosa made it known through his spokesperson that he had “reconsidered”. He would fight on.

The panel’s findings would be challenged in the Constitutional Court (ConCourt). This is political theatre. The Section 89 report is not an impeachment inquiry. It’s not even a recommendation that there should be an impeachment inquiry.

ALSO READ: Knives are out for Ramaphosa in ‘ANC madhouse’, but stepping aside ‘problematic’

It does no more than carry out parliament’s instruction to establish whether there are prima facie grounds for parliament to contemplate impeachment. The final decision on whether to proceed with an impeachment inquiry or not belongs to parliament.

And we already know, were the process to reach such an advanced stage, impeachment would almost certainly fail.

This week, the ANC’s national executive committee (NEC) declared its support for the president and instructed MPs to reject the panel’s findings if and when they come before the National Assembly.

So, in effect, what Ramaphosa is asking the ConCourt to do is to dismiss the panel’s report before the parliament that requested the report, can consider it. That’s patently unconstitutional and the president’s review application will surely get short shrift from the apex court.

Why would Ramaphosa follow this seemingly flawed strategy? It’s to buy time to see him safely through next week’s party leadership election and it’s about shoring up credibility for the time being. Phala Phala stinks worse than buffalo turds and the stench is likely to get worse.

There are investigations underway by the Hawks, the Reserve Bank and SA Revenue Service, among others. But that’s all in the distant future.

READ MORE: Possibility of many ANC MPs voting for Section 89 report ‘should not be ruled out’

For now, there’s at least an outside chance that the ConCourt might rule in his favour. If not, the delay will already have served its purpose of allowing Ramaphosa and the “good” ANC time to regroup and come up with alternative strategies.

After all, that’s what the Stalingrad defence is all about. Playing for a stalemate by steadily eroding the capacity of your opponent to put you in check.