President Cyril Ramaphosa is facing a Parliamentary impeachment inquiry over the events that unfolded after the 2020 theft of US dollars from his Phala Phala farm.
The legal conundrum of prima facie versus sufficient evidence has dominated final arguments in the Western Cape High Court, in the application of President Cyril Ramaphosa to stay impeachment proceedings against him.
Ramaphosa is facing a Parliamentary impeachment inquiry over the events that unfolded after the 2020 theft of US dollars from his Phala Phala farm.
His legal counsel, Wim Trengove, argued on Thursday that there’s insufficient evidence to suggest the President deliberately broke the law or acted in bad faith.
He also responded to arguments made by political parties who are opposing an urgent interdict application by Ramaphosa to stay Parliament’s proceedings.
Trengove said Parliament’s independent panel, which weighed up a myriad of evidence, which also included hearsay, did not establish whether he failed to comply with the law or that he was not permitted to conduct a farming business.
“Not only was there no evidence that the president actually knew, but all the evidence was to the contrary. It never asked itself whether we can say that the president deliberately failed to comply with this rule.
“The same is with the Section 34 charge. The highwater mark of a committee’s assessment is that the President should have reported that matter under Section 34 and not only reported it to Major General Rhoode.”
He also said a similar test to determine whether someone should face prosecution in a court of law should have been applied to ascertain whether Ramaphosa should face impeachment.
The court is expected to rule on the application by the end of next week.
Never miss a major story. Get breaking news and the latest developments from South Africa and beyond as they happen.
Leave a Reply