Ramaphosa impeachment committee delays evidence leader deliberations

The committee looking into the possible impeachment of President Cyril Ramaphosa wants more time to widen the search for an evidence leader.

The Section 89 impeachment committee met on Wednesday to deliberate on who parliament’s evidence leader for the anticipated hearings should be.

A list of nine potential evidence leaders was presented to the committee; however, only five had signalled their availability to participate.

Members soon requested a postponement, saying the list of options was too short and wished to add names to the list before coming to a decision.

Parties will be given until Friday, 24 July, at 6pm to provide additional nominations, with the committee to convene again on 29 July for the intended deliberations.

‘Exercise may be futile’

The five nominees who confirmed their availability from August were advocates Kate Hofmeyr, Vuyani Ngalwana, Ismail Jamie, Pule Seleke and Zintle Matebese, with most having pre-arranged matters to juggle until later in the year.

The ANC’s Mikateko Mahlaule expressed concern about one of the senior counsel’s “perceived” conflict of interest, but added he wanted committee members to be fully familiar with the options before them.

“We want to suggest that maybe let’s allow political parties to also do due diligence on the advocates, so that when we engage with political parties, we don’t engage from a disadvantaged point of view,” said Mahlaule.

A ruling on Ramaphosa’s attempt to halt the impeachment enquiry will be made on Friday morning in the Western Cape High Court, with Mahlaule putting forward another reason to delay.

“Maybe this exercise may be futile depending on the judgement, [but] if the judgement says we proceed, we proceed with determination,” said Mahlaule.

Conflicts and availability

The IFP, DA and ActionSA did not oppose the delay; however, the latter did oppose extending the number of nominees on the list.

African Transformation Movement’s Vuyo Zungula argued that if almost half the nomination list was unavailable, it made sense to find replacements or extend the pool.

Zungula added that the perceived conflicts cited did not meet the standards previously agreed by the committee, warning that broadening the definition would rule out too many candidates.

“In the event that perhaps advocate so and so has done litigation for party A, party B, for the president, against the president – that should not be viewed as a conflict of interest.

“That discussion amongst ourselves dealt with both real and perceived conflicts of interest,” said Zungula.

uMkhonto weSizwe Party’s John Hlophe agreed with Zungula, stating that at least one of the nominees could be viewed as a “Ramaphosa advocate” when further scrutinised.

Hlophe added a point on the availability of advocates, suggesting the committee guard against unnecessary delays.

“We don’t want a situation whereby we are held at ransom by an advocate who claims not to be available, who wants to come on his or her terms.

“Priority must be given to the impeachment committee. Once an advocate says I am available, being available means exactly that, not subject to certain days,” Hlophe concluded.