CAPE TOWN — Political parties now have until 6 p.m. on Friday to submit additional nominations for the evidence leader of Parliament’s Phala Phala impeachment committee. The extension comes amid growing concerns over the perceived bias of certain nominees tasked with probing the 2020 theft of foreign currency from President Cyril Ramaphosa’s farm. uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) committee member Dr. John Hlophe has been vocal about the need for a fair, impartial, and transparent appointment process.
During a recent preparatory meeting to finalize the inquisitorial body’s terms of reference, discussions highlighted attempts to disqualify specific candidates. Dr. Hlophe defended the MK Party’s submission of Advocate Vuyani Ngalwana, rejecting claims of bias based on a previously expressed legal opinion. He emphasized that the evidence leader’s role is not to act as a prosecutor, but rather to objectively present evidence before the committee in an inquisitorial capacity.
Expanding on the need for a broader, more neutral pool of candidates, Dr. Hlophe raised formal objections to other prominent legal figures under consideration. He noted that Kate Hofmeyr has previously represented President Ramaphosa on multiple occasions, which could create a perception of bias in favor of the president. Similarly, he pointed out that Advocate Ishmael Jamie consistently represents the Democratic Alliance and has never appeared for the MK Party, the EFF, or the IFP. Dr. Hlophe described him as a conservative figure who does not align with the progressive standards required for the role. Pule Seleka was also mentioned among the names currently under committee consideration.
Beyond the evidence leader debate, the MK Party, alongside the ATM, is strongly advocating for President Ramaphosa to be the first witness called before the committee. Dr. Hlophe argued that this is a non-negotiable requirement, citing the Section 89 independent panel’s finding that there is a prima facie case that the president violated his oath of office.
“President Ramaphosa does not have an option; he must give evidence,” Dr. Hlophe stated, stressing that the president must explain to the nation why he allegedly violated his oath or directly challenge the independent commission’s findings. He firmly rejected any suggestion that the president’s legal representatives could testify on his behalf, noting that such proxies are only permissible in exceptional cases involving minors, not adult public figures who alone know what transpired at the farm.
Dr. Hlophe warned that if President Ramaphosa chooses not to testify, the committee will be forced to draw adverse legal inferences, effectively allowing the prima facie findings to stand as unchallenged proof. He dismissed concerns that the inquiry is designed to humiliate the president, noting that former national leaders, including Nelson Mandela and Jacob Zuma, have previously testified in various legal and public forums as part of their constitutional duties.
Addressing speculation that the president might resign to avoid the process, Dr. Hlophe clarified that the impeachment proceedings have already commenced and must be finalized regardless of his status. He drew a parallel to legal precedents involving retired officials, such as the case of Justice Mata, where benefits were revoked post-retirement following disciplinary findings. Resigning before testifying, he warned, would only strengthen the case against the president by leaving the allegations entirely unchallenged.
Political parties are expected to finalize their additional submissions before the Friday deadline as the committee continues its critical preparatory work.
