The EFF has requested to be admitted as an intervening party in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s application to the Constitutional Court to review and set aside the Section 89 report into his Phala Phala farm theft case.
This comes after Ramaphosa’s legal team denied the red beret’s request to be added as the sixth respondent in the case.
Ramaphosa has labelled retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, retired judge Thokozile Masipa, and advocate Mahlape Sello as the first, second, and third respondents in his application.
He also named Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, Speaker of the National Assembly, and ATM leader Vuyolwethu Zungula as the fourth and fifth respondents, respectively.
Zungula is mentioned in the media because he proposed the motion that prompted parliament to appoint the panellists.
The panellists produced a report after conducting investigations, stating that there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated the constitution and may have a case to answer.
The report, which has the potential to force parliament to initiate an impeachment process against Ramaphosa, was not adopted, however, after ANC MPs voted against it at the plea of their political leaders at Luthuli House.
The EFF explained in the papers that they want a court order granting them leave to intervene as the sixth respondent in the proceedings.
The order should also allow them to make written and oral submissions, and any party opposing the application should pay their costs.
In his affidavit, EFF Deputy President Floyd Shivambu said that the EFF has not been named as a respondent in the case despite having a manifest, clear, and direct substantial interest in the relief sought by Ramaphosa.
Shivambu said before filing the application, their legal team wrote a letter to Ramaphosa’s attorneys explaining why they should be included in these proceedings.
According to Shivambu’s affidavit, Ramaphosa’s lawyers denied their request, claiming that the EFF lacked a material legal interest that would allow them to be a party to the application.
The EFF argues that Ramaphosa’s lawyers also stated that the application for relief was only against the Section 89 panel and parliament, and not against any other party.
“It is a response which is mistaken as a matter of fact and law, because through its members in the National Assembly, the EFF has a pre-eminent constitutional duty to hold the president and other members of the national executive accountable.
“The report, which the president seeks to review and set aside, was the first constitutional step to hold the president accountable based on well publicised allegations of a serious breach of the constitution, a series of violations of the law and unethical conduct arising from the so-called Phala Phala scandal,” reads the affidavit.
The relief sought by Ramaphosa, according to Shivambu, was an attempt by him to avoid the accountability they are entitled to enforce as South Africa’s third opposition party.
“Thus far, the president has refused to properly and fully account for his conduct on the Phala Phala saga.
“He has claimed that the allegations relating to the Phala Phala saga are still under investigation by law enforcement agents and the Public Protector, and those investigations have not been completed, and that based on the legal advice he received, he was not willing to publicly and fully respond to allegations against him,” reads the affidavit.