ConCourt grills EFF on delay in challenging National Assembly's decision not to initiate impeachment inquiry against Ramaphosa

CAPE TOWN - The Constitutional Court has grilled the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) on the delay in challenging the National Assembly's decision not to institute an impeachment inquiry against President Cyril Ramaphosa. 

It's been almost two years since the African National Congress (ANC) majority at the time rejected an independent panel report that concluded Ramaphosa had a case to answer to for the possession of US dollars on his Limpopo farm, Phala Phala.

The EFF wants the court to either overturn the National Assembly's decision on the report or compel it to reconsider it.

ALSO READ:

• Malema: EFF founding manifesto demands we fight against corruption

• Phala Phala ConCourt battle: EFF presents case against Ramaphosa over stolen US dollars

• EFF marches over Phala Phala: 'We are highlighting the corruption of ANC and Ramaphosa' - Malema

The party said the public interest in this matter should outweigh the time it's taken to launch the case.

The EFF said ANC MPs were influenced on how to vote for the independent panel report by ANC chairperson, Gwede Mantashe.

Seven ANC MPs didn't toe the party line.

It's also argued that the president and the ANC were conflating definitions of prima facie versus substantial evidence. 

Judge Rammaka Mathopo, however, questioned whether the EFF didn't believe the matter was now moot since the sixth Parliament has since lapsed.

"You've got a delay of about 14 months that's unexplained."

But EFF advocate Kameel Premhid said this was not sufficient reason to dismiss the case. 

"Even if the delay is as bad as it is, and that’s a factor I can’t run away from, it might be that it colours the remedy of the court, ultimately but not the merits of the challenge."

Judge: "So, in other words, we have to deal with it to get to the report and find out whether the report is correct or not?"

Premhid: "Yes."

The African Transformation Movement is currently before the court making its arguments as the party that originally tabled the motion for a Section 89 inquiry.