Richard Calland’s position on Phala Phala panel shaky – Mapisa-Nqakula to decide

National Assembly Speaker, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula is expected to make a decision on whether one expert would continue to serve on the three-person panel that will look into President Cyril Ramaphosa‘s Phala Phala farm saga.

Last week, Mapisa-Nqakula appointed former Constitutional Court (ConCourt)  Chief Justice, Sandile Ngcobo, former Judge Thokozile Masipa, and University of Cape Town (UCT) associate professor, Richard Calland on the panel which will determine whether Ramaphosa has a case to answer regarding the robbery at his Phala Phala farm.

The Speaker received 17 names – including former chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng – from various parties, but Calland’s appointment has been called into question.

Legal scrutiny

Addressing MPs during Thursday’s Programming Committee meeting, the Speaker said she received letters from the EFF and the DA expressing their “discomfort” about Calland’s appointment.

“I also received a letter from GOOD party who are the ones nominated Mr Calland [and they] motivated his continued serving on the panel. I have subjected the matter to legal scrutiny.

ALSO READ: Phala Phala panel: Meet the people who will pass judgement on Ramaphosa

“I requested to be given legal advice as to how to handle such a matter because by the time all these matters did arise, I had appointed Professor Calland and I had even written to inform him about it,” she said.

Having received the legal opinion on Wednesday, the Speaker said she was now studying the document.

“Within the next 24 hours or so, you will hear what the way forward will be,” Mapisa-Nqakula said.

“I had to make sure everything is done by the book in terms of the law. Once I complete studying the legal opinion, I will take a decision on the matter,” she added.

‘Due diligence’

With some MPs questioning whether background checks were conducted on Calland, Secretary to Parliament Masibulele Xaso argued that Speaker acted within the rules of the House.

“Before the Speaker made the appointments due diligence was conducted. The fact is that some candidates were not available, but since objections have been raised the matter is being dealt with.

“The steps that the Speaker has followed are strictly in terms of the rules. There’s certainly no provision for the Speaker to subject her intention to appoint to a structure of Parliament,” he said.

Mapisa-Nqakula pointed out that parties failed to notify the candidates they had selected.

RELATED: ATM submits supplementary charges against Ramaphosa to National Assembly

“A number of those nominated were completely taken by surprise when we approached to them to establish whether they would able to serve on the panel or not.

“If there’s anything I’m very upset about, [it] is that parties could not do the very basics of things, which they ought to have done, which is that when you nominate a person to serve on a panel such as this, you would have gone to such as person and say, ‘We’ve nominated you and parliament may contact you, will you please indicate availability,’ or even check with the person before you nominated,” she said.

“It was very disappointing to find that a list of 17 people would end up with eight people who are not available to serve on the panel, but despite that I’m confident the three candidates I chose from the list of available nominees is a credible one,” Mapisa-Nqakula added.

Implications

The Speaker revealed that she decided against the withdrawal of Calland’s appointment, further indicating that his independence was the issue for some, rather than his integrity.

“I decided to follow the processes by way of putting that to test legally, what are the implications are going to be, in the event we remove or even keep Professor Calland on the panel.”

READ MORE: Phala Phala: Ramaphosa to face another motion of no confidence

There are only three names left who would be able to replace Calland if he is removed.

“We will look at those three [candidates],” the Speaker said.

She also agreed that the process cannot be delayed with the panel having been given 30 days to complete its work.

The panel will decide whether the president will be subject to a process that may lead to his removal from office in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution and Rule 129A-Q of the National Assembly Rules.