CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — The selection of an impartial Phala Phala impeachment evidence leader remains the focal point of parliamentary proceedings as the African Transformation Movement (ATM) calls for strict adherence to transparency and legal rigor. ATM parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula has weighed in on the extended nomination timeline, emphasizing that the Section 89 inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa must be driven by facts rather than political maneuvering.
Addressing the procedural delays, Zungula clarified that political parties did not actually miss the original July 10 deadline for submissions. Instead, the timeline was extended to Friday at 6 pm because Parliament’s legal advisers discovered that over 55% of the initially nominated Senior Counsel were unavailable. This high unavailability rate severely restricted the committee’s pool of candidates. Moving forward, parties will return to the drawing board to submit fresh nominations. The parliamentary legal team will then vet these new candidates for availability, with a finalized list expected by Monday and a definitive committee decision scheduled for Wednesday.
A major point of contention has been the definition of a real or perceived conflict of interest regarding the evidence leader. Zungula noted that the committee had previously agreed that a conflict exists only if a counsel has appeared in court either for or against the Phala Phala matter. He expressed frustration that some parties are attempting to disqualify Senior Counsel based on the perception that they might hold prior views on the issue or have previously represented a political party or the President. Zungula argued this contradicts the committee’s own agreements and stressed that the process must not devolve into a political witch hunt, nor should it act as a shield to protect the President.
To ensure the inquiry is both fair and comprehensible, Zungula advocated for the impeachment committee to invite the authors of the original Section 89 independent panel report to present their findings in person. He argued this is vital for demystifying complex legal concepts, such as “paid work” and violations of Section 34 of PRAA. Zungula pointed out that the committee is not comprised entirely of trained lawyers, with some members only holding a matric certificate. Having the report’s authors break down technical legal jargon is essential, he argued, so that both the MPs and the broader South African public can fully grasp the proceedings.
Furthermore, Zungula firmly dismissed recent arguments suggesting that President Ramaphosa should not be called to testify, which some members have characterized as hearsay. Because the inquiry is based on prima facie evidence, Zungula asserted that it is fundamentally illogical to investigate misconduct without calling the accused to testify.
He directed sharp criticism at newly appointed MPs who he claims lack the institutional memory of the process, which has been ongoing since 2022. Zungula alleged that some of these individuals are “singing for their supper” to protect patronage within the Government of National Unity (GNU), leading them to make submissions that undermine the inquiry’s integrity.
The parliamentary process now awaits a critical legal intervention, with the Western Cape High Court set to deliver judgment this Friday on the President’s application to suspend the committee’s activities. Zungula expressed absolute confidence that the court will uphold the law, citing a direct precedent from a previous Section 194 accountability process where the same Western Cape High Court ruled that the judiciary cannot dictate Parliament’s internal workings. He maintained that a lower court should not second-guess or frustrate a Constitutional Court order that explicitly directed Parliament to establish the impeachment committee, ensuring that the rule of law and democratic accountability remain intact.
