Phala Phala impeachment committee widens net for evidence leader

Parliament’s impeachment committee postponed selecting an evidence leader for the Phala Phala inquiry,extending nominations until Friday.

Graphic: Sharlene Rood/News24. Images: Storm Simpson/News24; South African Police Service

Parliament’s impeachment committee postponed selecting an evidence leader for the Phala Phala inquiry,extending nominations until Friday.The committee only had a list of four advocates to choose from,with a conflict of interest concern hanging over one of them.The committee awaits a court ruling on President Cyril Ramaphosa’s interdict application,which is expected on Friday.Parliament’s impeachment committee postponed the selection of their evidence leader for its inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa over Phala Phala.

The political parties represented on the committee (all parties in Parliament bar GOOD and the PAC) could nominate senior advocates for evidence leaders. That left the committee secretariat with nine names,but four of them indicated they are not available. Another advocate indicated they would be available only from November.

As the committee wants the evidence leader to start its work in August,that advocate was not considered.

This left the committee on Wednesday morning with the names of senior advocates Kate Hofmeyr,Vuyani Ngalwana,Ismail Jamie,and Pule Seleka.

ADVERTISEMENT

Parliament’s legal services noted that Ngalwana had made public comments about the Phala Phala matter. Legal services noted that he said he is not conflicted,even though he made those comments.

ANC MP Mikateko Mahlaule suggested that while Ngalwana might not be conflicted,there could be a perception that he is conflicted and suggested that they eliminate his name.

MKP parliamentary leader John Hlophe said they should be careful not to take the conflict-of-interest issue too far,as it could also apply to the other nominees. For instance,Hofmeyr has represented Ramaphosa more than once.

Hlophe said:

ADVERTISEMENT

She is perceived out there as being a Ramaphosa advocate.

Ngalwana has often represented Hlophe.

The committee agreed to decide on whether Ngalwana should be excluded at its meeting next Wednesday.

There was consensus among parties that they should extend their search for possible evidence leaders.

READ | Phala Phala: Two former Zondo evidence leaders in the running for impeachment committee

The committee agreed to submit further nominations by 18:00 on Friday. The parliamentary legal team will check the nominated advocates’ availability and circulate a new list by Monday,giving parties the chance to do their own due diligence on the nominees. The committee will then meet again next Wednesday to decide who they want as the evidence leader.

The appointment,however,will be made by the Secretary to Parliament.

The Patriotic Alliance will not participate in this process because,according to its chief whip,Marlon Daniels,the advocate eventually appointed will be considered to be aligned with the party that nominated them.

EFF leader Julius Malema described this as an “illiterate input”.

Malema said:

It is so uneducated.

Meanwhile,the committee is awaiting a court ruling that will be consequential to its future. Last week,the Western Cape heard Ramaphosa’s application to interdict the committee from having hearings pending the conclusion of his application to review the independent panel’s report. The ruling in the interdict application is expected by the end of the week.

If that ruling doesn’t go Ramaphosa’s way,nothing would prevent the committee from calling witnesses to examine how a large amount of foreign currency ended up in the presidential couch,where it came from,and Ramaphosa’s conduct after the money was stolen to determine whether Ramaphosa should be removed from office.

Mahlaule said the ruling might mean that the appointment of an evidence leader on Wednesday is futile.

ADVERTISEMENT

MKP MP Khanyisile Litchfield-Tshabalala said the outcome of Friday’s ruling is “neither here nor there”.

“There is no lower court that can revoke the decision of a higher court. It will go to the Guinness Book of Records.”