Ramaphosa is guilty – but of what?

One thing that the country needs to get straight is that President Cyril Ramaphosa is guilty of something.

What that something is nobody quite knows and even the Section 89 panel that looked into whether his conduct on the Phala Phala farm burglary has grounds for impeachment came back with the result that there is prima facie evidence of conduct that could lead to his impeachment.

That is, based on the first impression, not on conclusive evidence, there could be grounds for the president’s impeachment. How, then, can it be concluded that the president is guilty of something?

As a KayaFM DJ said: “Innocent people come clean, they don’t wait to be told to come clean and the president has not come clean about Phala Phala.”

ALSO READ: Ramaphosa’s fight back could pick apart Phala Phala panel’s ‘irrational’ errors

The question right now should not be whether the president is guilty or not, but rather establishing the extent of his guilt and whether the damage his actions have done to the office of the president is so bad as to warrant his removal before the end of his term.

The Section 89 panel report makes for interesting reading but all its recommendations are based on the possibility that the president “may have” acted in a way that violates his oath of office.

Some law legal experts, such as Richard Calland and Professor Dennis Davis, believe the report is so badly flawed that the president should not even be shaken by it.

Which begs the question, what now?

The removal of Thabo Mbeki in 2008, through the majority ruling party process of recalling him as president, set a precedent that a sitting president can be removed by his/her own party without going through constitutional channels.

ALSO READ: Cope backs Ramaphosa, fears state capture report will be ‘thrown out the window’

Ironically, the under-fire Ramaphosa wasa beneficiary of the precedent when the ruling party recalled Jacob Zuma and installed him.

Ramaphosa’s biggest threat right now is not a parliamentary process that could remove him through a motion of no confidence. It is him being removed through his own party recalling him before the truth about Phala Phala is uncovered.

The truth is Ramaphosa has always had a bull’s eye on his forehead from the day he assumed the presidential seat. His installation as president interrupted the grandest public funds looting scheme that post-apartheid South Africa has seen.

Not only that, but his commitment to let the Zondo commission unearth the specifics of the looting and allowing the National Prosecuting Authority the freedom to prosecute those responsible, meant that every single day the faction of his own party that was responsible for the looting would be fighting for his removal.

And in the most clumsiest of ways, the president presented them with the stick that they are using to beat him to submission. On Thursday last week, he nearly submitted his resignation.

Must Ramaphosa escape accountability because his government is prosecuting those who looted public funds? No. He must face the consequences of his actions and if it is established that he violated his oath of office, he must be removed.

What must not be allowed to happen, though, is the removal of a president simply to fulfil the wishes of those who want to deny the country justice. Corruption cannot be allowed to triumph simply because the man at the helm violated his oath of office.

Opposition parties and cool heads within the ruling party need to put the interests of South Africa first in whatever they decide.

Knee-jerk reactions at this point could spell doom for SA and set this country back several decades.