Ramaphosa impeachment unlikely - Calland

Added: 2026-05-16

[00:00:00]Sir Ramaposa faces a highstakes dual challenge to his leadership as the cononto wish party filed a motion of no confidence coinciding with a courtmandated revival of impeachment proceedings. This follows the May 8th constitutional court ruling. The National Assembly has been forced to reopen investigations into the Pala Palafarm scandal. This has created a rare situation where a sitting president must defend against both a political vote of trust and a legal inquiry into serious misconduct. Let's get legal distinction between the two forms of processes from the associate professor of public law at UCT, Professor Richard Kalen. Professor, thank you very much for your time this evening. As South Africans, I guess we've become so accustomed to commissions that we know how they work, how evidence is processed, but we're hearing of this impeachment committee which will sit uh comprising of members of parliament who are also members of political parties.

[00:01:04]Maybe just draw a distinction for us between uh you know a commission and this particular parliamentary process.

[00:01:13]>> Yeah, good evening Linda. Uh let me begin by saying a very important point.

[00:01:18]We don't directly elect our presidents in this country. We elect a national assembly of 400 members of parliament and then they elect the president. And it follows from that that they can also remove the president. They can change their mind if you like. And there are two routes under the constitution by which national assembly can remove a sitting president. First is a vote of no confidence under section 102 and they can either remove the president in which case the whole of the president and his cabinet the whole of government goes or just the cabinet and that's a purely political choice and there are no grounds required for it. It's a political choice. Parliament has lost confidence in the executive and they wish to remove him by a majority 201 votes. The other route section 89 is impeachment. The word impeachment ironically is not used in the constitution but we understand it politically and legally globally as a way of removing a president on a particular ground and there are three grounds. serious transaction of the law or the constitution, serious misconduct or incapacity, ill health, mental illness, that kind of thing as has been claimed by the way in the United States might be applicable in relation to President Trump, but that's another matter.

[00:02:39]>> Yeah. And I mean here we are seeing this process that some people may regard as really uncharted territory uh for parliament right and given of course how they're going to be dealing with this there is that important conversation about you know how the information that the parliamentarians are going to be processing will be doing so. So in this particular process, how are they going to be handling issues of for example evidence uh in this process where it comes from and how it is relevant to the specific mandated references or terms of reference that they will be dealing with.

[00:03:24]>> So for the vote of no confidence, the one that's just been uh tabled by the MK party, there's no such inquiry. It's a simple vote in parliament. uh and we've had a few of those before under President Zuma under impeachment process section 89. What now happens is the impeachment committee and this is uncharted territory in the sense this is the first time such an inquiry such a committee has sat and it's been decided this week that 31 members of parliament will sit on that committee. How they go about their business has not yet been made clear. It's understood that there will be a evidence leader. So there will be a lawyer whose job it is to guide the evidence in front of the committee. Two things to remember in relation to that.

[00:04:07]All of the evidence must be relevant to one or other of the three grounds under section 89. And in this case it's just the first two that apply. And the second point and that's serious misconduct or serious breach of the law or the constitution. And and secondly, um what's really important to remember here, and it's a point that's been made uh twice now, in December 22 and more recently in the last week since the constitutional court decision a week ago, made by former judge John Murphy, where he reminds us that the original resolution from the ATM party seeking an impeachment back in 2022 provides the parameters of this inquiry. And in theory at least the the the committee in parliament should not go outside of those parameters and they were quite limited grounds and so since then all sorts of allegations have been made against the president none of which are relevant they've been investigated by other bodies such as the hawks SARS and so on so the committee's job and the chairperson of the committee is going to have a tough job I suspect keeping the keeping a a vigorous uh group of members of parliament in line here and keep them between the the lanes as it were But their job is to stick to that task and stick to that mandate.

[00:05:23]>> Yeah. Earlier you mentioned how the motion of no confidence really you don't need much of you know reasons to table it. It may be just politically motivated. But here obviously uh section 89 or 189 of the constitution does mandate those reasons that you highlighted earlier. And speaking of it being uncharted territory, this may also open as we hear evidence uh you know into this particular matter. This may open the president to his personal life which ultimately again is uncharted territory investigating and unpacking all the allegations that are coming from this matter.

[00:06:05]Well, uh, it shouldn't do, Linda, because as I've tried to indicate, the the the inquiry that's conducted by the impeachment committee, uh, has to stick to the mandate, and the mandate is section 89, one or other of those grounds I mentioned, and the original resolution. If the MPs try and go outside of that, the chairperson's job will be to pull them back in and to stop them doing that. Of course, that's going to be a very difficult task as I say and no doubt opposition parties like MK and EFF are going to use this process if it happens to throw as much mud at the president as possible to hurt him in the run-up to the local government elections uh later this year. I say if because I do not believe that this impeachment committee is ever going to sit. I don't believe the president has any intention of of subjecting himself to such a uh such a process at this point in his career. And I think what is more likely as a scenario is that once he lodges his review application against the original stage one part of this process which was the independent section 89 panel back in December uh 2022. Uh once he lodges those papers then what should happen is that the parliamentary process that you and I have just been discussing should be put on pause whilst the review case is heard in the high court.

[00:07:23]>> Yeah. and and if of course we don't get to that point and this process uh starts there is also the issue of transparency right you've just mentioned that political parties will want to throw whatever it is so ultimately at the bottom of this should be to find the truth and nothing but the truth ultimately if it ever sits do you think we'll get to that point where we know given that the members of parliament also belong to political parties and everyone here including the president may have his own agenda.

[00:08:00]Well, whether or not this impeachment committee, if it ever sits, and as I say, I think it's unlikely, if it ever sits, its job is to make findings and to report to the National Assembly as to whether there is uh a finding against the president sufficient to amount to serious misconduct or a serious transaction or transgression of the law of the constitution. Um and and that will be a difficult process, but but um whether that answers all of the questions, the mis the mystery of parlor parallel gate if you like and where this money came from and whose money it was and all the rest of it, I I rather doubt frankly.

[00:08:40]>> Yeah. And and you spoke earlier about him possibly uh you know interdicting this and I suppose in that case he might have to do an application in two folds.

[00:08:51]part A an interdict and of course part B a review. Does it then automatically also halt this process?

[00:08:59]>> So we we that remains to be seen. Linda, it's a good question. I I the the president's spokesman said in an interview three or four days ago that that wasn't their plan. I think it's because they're wanting to see if once they lodge the review application in court whether the uh parliament the speaker decides of her own valition to press pause on the impeachment committee following the judgment of the constitutional court which at paragraph 139 says the impeachment committee should happen immediately unless or until there the the the re there there is a review that sets aside the original uh uh report of the independent panel.

[00:09:38]And it would make no sense in law or in fact to continue with phase two if phase one is being challenged. That would be unjust to the president and it would be I think uh uh constitutionally nonsensical.

[00:09:51]>> Yeah. Earlier I made reference to how this process may open us uh or open the president to his personal life being exposed. And this is in relation to uh you know the possible witnesses that may come. I mean, I was reading an article earlier today that was suggesting that uh, you know, some of the president's own staff from that farm may have to be called to come and testify. And again, it speaks to this interdict and why it could be so important to the president.

[00:10:20]Would he want uh you know to also stop that from happening for from you know politicians really digging deeper into what could have possibly happened which may ultimately open the president up to interrogation of other matters.

[00:10:37]>> Well the independent I I don't know entirely the answer to that question. is it's it's it remains to be seen in some respects, but but certainly the president, his lawyers, and the ANC on the impeachment committee, I think, will do all they can to narrow the uh the remit and narrow the focus of the impeachment committee if it ever sits and conducts this inquiry. They will have as long as they like to to chow through all of this uh stuff. The original independent uh panel had a very limited time. it had from midepptember to the 30th of November 22 and that may explain why their report is I in my view frankly rather inadequate and defective and rather shady shoddy in its construction and and and drafty um and that's why it's an insecure foundation for this whole process is the is the president's point and I agree with him um but it I think the time pressure on that independent panel was too much to bear they didn't in fact they say in their own report that they didn't really have enough time to get all the evidence they wanted and yet they went on and made really quite serious findings against the president.

[00:11:45]>> Yeah. The ANC is accused of having stopped that report through that vote that has now uh been declared unlawful uh by the constitutional court. And I wonder the interest of the numbers here in this committee, right? Because the ANC has more members and like I indicated earlier uh right everybody these are political parties everybody has their own agenda. How much do numbers influence or how are they going to influence what is going to come out of this particular process?

[00:12:19]>> Well, it was said in in the United Kingdom this week uh that in politics numbers always matter. I think it was somebody in relation to the the future of British Prime Minister Kier Star DMA who quoted the famous apherism from FD Roosevelt that uh numbers is everything in politics and and that's absolutely right as we said at the beginning of our discussion Linda the section 89 process and impeachment process requires a twothirds majority in the end the ANC has 40% of uh parliament and 40% is bigger than one/ird obviously and So they would comfortably be able to block an impeachment assuming they remain uh as solid as they appear to be at the moment. The National Executive Committee this week came out very firmly behind the president and his political and legal uh uh strategy. So that's why and and Jodi Collipin uh Justice Colipin I should say in his judgment descent in the constitutional court case the judgment that was handed down exactly a week ago a very compelling descent in which he reminded us that ultimately despite the fact there is an investigation and an inquiry under the grounds of of 189 uh of section 89 in the end it's a political choice it's a vote in parliament and that makes sense in a democratic fashion because as I said right at the beginning. It's the National Assembly that elects the president and it's the National Assembly which can make that choice to remove the president.

[00:13:48]>> Yeah. And lastly, let's just talk about the importance of transparency.

[00:13:52]Obviously, the ANC is a political party that has been over the years just trying to get under or out of this dark cloud of uh allegations of corruption. And this particular uh process is one where South Africans at least will seek a transparency throughout. How important is that in how it will be handled?

[00:14:18]>> Yes, it's a it's another good question.

[00:14:21]I I suppose President Ramapaza as he approaches what uh he's in the autumn of his political career, I would say towards the end of autumn even and and I think he will want a uh a smooth passage and he he won't want his legacy uh disturbed by being impeached. Who would?

[00:14:39]It's a very serious finding. I don't think he will be impeached for the reasons we've discussed, but it's a shadow hanging over him. And of course, the great contradiction about this, which is a political point to finish on, is that this is a president who has set out to renew the state, to rebuild institutions that were broken by the the state capture project of a very veno and corrupt president, President Jacob Zumer. And yet he is also now a president accused uh of of a rather mysterious uh event at his farm involving uh a large amount of of cash.

[00:15:13]and and whether we ever find out where that cash came from, whose cash it was, and for what purpose it was intended, as I say, I I don't uh quite know. But it's it's unfortunate certainly both for the president and for the country and the government's attempt to try and rebuild confidence and trust in public institutions, including the president, uh that this matter should be hanging over him. So I suppose the the the best outcome for everybody and for the country would be if if this process leads to some kind of closure in which the public can say yes, we now know enough. We're satisfied and we can move on.

[00:15:50]>> Professor Richard Kellen, thank you very much for your time and your insight.

[00:15:55]Professor Kelland is with the public law at the UCT. Thank you very much for your time uh this evening talking to us about that important process amidst obviously these two processes that President Ser Ramakosa now faces.