Phala Phala theft: DA considering ‘legal options’ after Parliament declines request

The Democratic Alliance (DA) says it will be “considering its legal options” after Parliament refused to set up a committee into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s $4 million theft saga.

Parliament on Saturday confirmed that National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula decided against establishing an Ad hoc Committee to look into the February 2020 theft at the president’s Phala Phala farm in Limpopo.

DA leader John Steenhuisen requested the establishment of the committee in terms of National Assembly Rule 253(1)(b).

This rule allows for the establishment of such a committee “during the adjournment of the assembly for a period of more than 14 days, by the Speaker after consulting the Chief Whip and the most senior whip of each of the other parties”.

ALSO READ: Parliament won’t hold Ramaphosa to account for farm theft, says expert

“In her letter, the Speaker declined the request arguing that Rule 253 sets out requirements for the establishment of an Ad hoc Committee, and one of them is the performance of a specific task.

“While the request proposes a committee on Phala Phala, it goes on to list various distinct tasks for investigation. In the nature of the proposed investigation, this is understandable,” parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said in a statement.

“However, some of the tasks proposed are arguably, still within the purview of other entities or institutions, including law enforcement, and may indeed necessitate parliament’s attention in due course.

“At this stage, the various components raised by Mr Steenhuisen for parliamentary intervention are better suited for attention by the existing Parliamentary oversight structures,” Mothapo added.

‘Repurposing Parliament’

Reacting to the news, Steenhuisen criticised Mapisa-Nqakula for her decision, saying the Speaker was shielding “the executive, and the president himself, from the accountability”.

“Once again, parliament is standing by and watching while our head of state is mired in serious allegations of theft, kidnapping, and the abuse of state resources – allegations which taint the office of the Presidency and could render President Ramaphosa wholly unfit to hold public office.

“The ANC is once again repurposing parliament as a rug under which it sweeps scandal and corruption out of sight of the public eye,” the DA leader said in a statement on Saturday.

READ MORE: Ramaphosa farm theft: DA urges Parliament to summon Cele over cover-up allegations

Steenhuisen further said the opposition party would consider its legal options in challenging the Speaker’s decision.

“Parliament is not an extension of the ANC, and we will make sure our oversight institutions are never again sidelined to allow for cadres to revel in impunity,” he added.

Along with the Public Protector, the DA had already asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States (US), the South African Revenue Service (Sars) and the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) to also investigate the Phala Phala theft.

The Public Protector’s office is already investigating Ramaphosa after the African Transformational Movement (ATM) filed a similar complaint.

ATM request

Meanwhile, the ATM provided clarity on claims that Mapisa-Nqakula also rejected its request for a Section 89 inquiry to be established.

In her letter to ATM president Vuyo Zungula, the Speaker had indicated that she was unable to determine which of the listed grounds in Section 89(1) was the party relying on.

“The Speaker has not declined the ATM’s [Section] 89 motion to remove Ramaphosa.

“She wants further details. She has basically asked the ATM to match the transgressions to particular paragraphs of [Section] 89(1). Ramaphosa has violated the entire [Section] 89(1). The ATM will comply [and] resubmit,” the party said in a tweet on Sunday.

CORRECTION.
The Speaker has not declined the ATM's s89 motion to remove Ramaphosa. She wants further details.
She has basically asked the ATM to match the transgressions to particular paragraphs of s89(1).
Ramaphosa has violated the entire s89(1).
The ATM will comply & resubmit. https://t.co/07t52Na0g9

— African Transformation Movement (@ATMovement_SA) July 10, 2022

This will be second time the ATM submits its Section 89 motion.

Mapisa-Nqakula previously rejected the ATM’s initial request for a Section 89 inquiry after considering the “substantive issues raised” on the matter.

The Speaker said the party’s request inquiry was not accompanied by substantive motions as required by parliament’s rules.

The ATM then resubmitted the motion, with the Speaker then signalling that she was considering the matter after receiving the party’s submission on 17 June.

The party had criticised Mapisa-Nqakula’s “silence” after two weeks passed without a decision being communicated.

At the time, the ATM said it would explore other options should the Speaker had failed to respond to their letter by 28 June.

NOW READ: ATM seeks ‘full control’ in IPID’s Phala Phala farm investigation