Members of Parliament (MPs) serving on Parliament’s Impeachment Committee have welcomed a legal opinion that President Cyril Ramaphosa can be summoned should he refuse to appear on their invitation.
This was one of the matters discussed in the legal opinion provided to the committee about whether Ramaphosa could be summoned if he declined to appear in person and what inferences could be drawn from his decision.
The committee is still busy with administrative work, after the Western Cape High Court ruled that its hearings must be halted.
The legal advice to the committee is that, in line with parliamentary practice, Ramaphosa should be allowed to appear voluntarily and only upon his refusal should he be summoned.
Members of the committee, such as EFF leader Julius Malema and MKP Parliamentary leader John Hlophe, agreed with the legal opinion provided.
They are of the view that the recommendation is correct and well-placed, and that the approach is very cordial.
The committee is still busy with administrative work, after the Western Cape High Court ruled that its hearings to determine whether the President should be impeached must be halted.
Committee members had a lengthy discussion about determining the standard of proof that they will apply.
Parliament’s legal advisor Sue Ann Isaacs advised MPs to use the Constitution as their guide.
“Our suggestion is that members take a practical approach to the matter at hand. The Constitution determines the grounds on which the President may be removed. The rules define specific elements of those charges. For instance, it defines what serious misconduct is and the other elements. So the committee must apply those standards, first hear the evidence, and determine whether the evidence meets those particular elements of the offence,” explains Isaacs.
Section 89 Committee holds virtual session on impeachment proceedings
Meanwhile, President Ramaphosa is opposing the urgent direct appeal to the Constitutional Court by Parliament’s Impeachment Committee and others.
In his answering affidavit, Ramaphosa states, among others, that the applicants do not show that their applications are urgent, make no case for direct access to the Constitutional Court, and that the interest of justice does not favour the leave to appeal against an interim order.
