Phala Phala matter akin to ‘Zuma’s Nkandla upgrades’ – EFF argues [VIDEO]

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has argued that it is “problematic” for a sitting president, to have millions of dollars stuffed in couches at his farm.

The Constitutional Court is hearing the red berets application against the Speaker of the National Assembly for rejecting the Section 89 panel report regarding the Phala Phala matter in 2022 and not referring it to an impeachment committee.

Watch Kameel Premhid comparing Phala Phala to Nkandla

Phala Phala report

The report, compiled by an independent panel led by retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo was tasked with investigating allegations against President Cyril Ramaphosa after a large sum in foreign currency was stolen from his Phala Phala farm in Limpopo.

The report found that there was a prima facie case for which the President had to answer.

ALSO READ: ‘Phala Phala will never die’ – EFF and ATM take on Ramaphosa and NA over panel’s report

‘Phala Phala is like Nkandla’

Advocate for the EFF Kameel Premhid argued that the Phala Phala matter is akin to former President Jacob  Zuma’s upgrades at Nkandla.

Premhid argued that the matter is “really very simple.”

“The EFF submits that over R10 million hidden in the couch is as problematic and controversial for a president as benefiting from unlawful upgrades to his residence in Northern KwaZulu Natal and so, having regard to this court’s judgment in EFF, the submission is really simple before the court, with all due respect.

“The first one, and these are the broad overarching submissions we say the court needs to concern itself as we go through the various issues that will be contested between the parties. The first one is whether or not the reasons offered by the National Assembly when it voted down the independent panel’s report stands legal scrutiny,” Premhid argued.

EFF reasons

Premhid said there have been” two bundles of reasons” that have been advanced before the court.

“The first bundle of reasons are those reasons that were given at the time by then minister of Justice — Minister Lamola, in the House, and is recorded in Hansard that can be found in EFF annexure six, which runs on to two volumes if I’m not mistaken.

“Effectively, what Minister Lamola’s reasons are, is that the panel misconstrued the threshold it had to apply and he, and developed by our learned friends for the ANC in argument, seek to draw this distinction between sufficient information, and prima facie  evidence for the purposes of an impeachment motion here about today,” Prehmid argued.

ALSO READ: Opposition calls on NPA to charge Ramaphosa over Phala Phala saga

‘Unfettered discretion’

Premhid started Tuesday’s proceedings that if Parliament is given “unfettered discretion” to decide on whether a President should face an impeachment inquiry, “worthy” cases of impeachment will simply be voted down.

However, Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga questioned his argument.

Premhid confirmed that the EFF argues the rules for impeachment should be amended so that – should an independent panel determine that there are grounds for a president to be impeached – that recommendation should immediately be referred to a committee for an impeachment investigation.

This would mean that a recommendation for an impeachment investigation would not require a Parliamentary vote in order to result in an inquiry.

The EFF argued that, unless the Constitutional Court “meaningfully and permanently intervenes to curtail partisan interests in favour of legality, history will repeat itself”.

‘Sufficient evidence’

Justice Zukisa Tshiqi questioned whether there was “sufficient evidence” to justify Ramaphosa facing impeachment over Phala Phala.

Referring to Premhid’s earlier argument, Tshiqi questioned whether the National Assembly should not be required to endorse an independent panel’s finding that a President should face an impeachment inquiry and whether the relief that the EFF is seeking would not breach the principle of separation of powers.

“Are you not asking us to say that the National Assembly should not have voted not to accept the panel’s report?”

What EFF wants

Premhid replied in the negative saying this is “not a generic attack” on the National Assembly’s ability not to support an impeachment inquiry but rather focused on the specifics of the EFF where the reasons given not to support impeachment were not rational and this resulted in unlawfulness.

The EFF wants the ConCourt to either overturn the National Assembly’s decision not to accept the Phala Phala report or compel it to take the decision anew.

Premhid said the independent panel that considered the evidence against Ramaphosa acted as a “sifting mechanism”, and played that role as an extension of the National Assembly.

ALSO READ: EFF turns to ConCourt to challenge parliament’s rejection of Phala Phala report