Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema says the party wants President Cyril Ramaphosa to be held accountable for the $580 000 found at his Phala Phala farm.
Malema was speaking ahead of the EFF march that is taking place from Mary Fitzgerald Square in Newtown to the Constitutional Court in Braamfontein, Johannesburg today.
This comes as the EFF is challenging parliament’s decision to forego an impeachment investigation into Ramaphosa on the Phala Phala farm theft.
Malema says that President Ramaphosa must be held accountable for Phala Phala, in the same manner that former President Jacob Zuma was held accountable for Nkandla.
He says, “Because 10 million was found in his office. A President cannot stash 10 million under his sofa and is not punished for that. Every President must be held responsible. Every President must be accountable. We did the same thing with Jacob Zuma. When he spent money on Nkandla, we took him to the Constitutional Court and they said he must pay back the money. The same thing must happen to Ramaphosa.”
VIDEO: Malema addresses crowds:
Court case
EFF lawyers have argued that the reasons advanced for not adopting the Section 89 independent panel report on the Phala Phala farm matter are not able to be judged by a court.
Adv Kameel Premid says the African National Congress (ANC) did not put forward an important basis to vote against the panel report.
The Constitutional Court is hearing the red beret’s application against the National Assembly Speaker over the report.
The report found that there was a prima facie case for which the President had to answer.
Premid delivered this argument before the bench in the apex court.
He says, “There is binding authority which tells you that prima facie evidence exists on a spectrum and that the objective to find prima facie evidence for the purpose of a motion is not to subject the initial sifting mechanism done by the panel to the same threshold as actual guilt.”
Premid says, “It’s something lower than that and to the extent that the panel engaged with sufficient information and prima facie evidence, the panel discharged its responsibility accordingly and that’s why that reason, insofar as the principle reason in front of you is concerned, that’s no reason at all.”
Premid has also argued that the reliance on political instructions in the National Assembly which undermines the role to be played by Parliament in terms of the Constitution has already been found to be unlawful in the Constitutional Court.
He argues that the political abuse under a numerical majority undermines the Constitutional obligation that individual MPs have.
Premid says, “If there is a space in which the ANC’s arguments that political instruction in a matter like this is permissible, then the ANC is confronted by what this court said in UDM and that is that in an instance of a clash between an individual MPs political allegiance to their party and their constitutional obligation in terms of their oath of office, then it is their oath that must succeed and we’ll say on the application of that UDM principle to these facts, not only has the ANC told you that they took the reasons that they did for political reasons which is in conflict with UDM, it’s also that to the extent that the ANC relies on those reasons, those reasons have already been found to be unlawful.” Additional reporting by Zoleka Qodashe.
LIVE STREAM | EFF, ATM head to ConCourt to challenge Phala Phala report decision:
Politics – SABC News – Breaking news, special reports, world, business, sport coverage of all South African current events. Africa’s news leader.