Cape Town – UCT public law Professor Richard Calland on Tuesday maintained his independence after being removed from the three-member panel of experts that will determine whether President Cyril Ramaphosa has a case to answer to on his Phala Phala farm scandal.
This comes after National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula considered a legal opinion following objections from the DA and EFF to Calland’s inclusion on the panel.
The two parties have accused Calland of bias and openly declaring support for Ramaphosa on various media platforms.
On Tuesday, Mapisa-Nqakula announced advocate Mahlape Sello, who recently served on the Judicial Commission on state capture, as Calland’s replacement.
Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said Mapisa-Nqakula had considered the written submissions and legal opinion regarding the appointment of Calland.
“The Speaker was of a view that, while there exists no factual basis to corroborate any perceived or apprehension of bias, the integrity of the work of the panel would be best served if Prof Calland is excluded from the panel,” Mothapo said.
Mapisa-Nqakula has since communicated her decision to Calland, who has expressed his appreciation for consideration and has agreed to the decision.
“The Speaker sincerely thanks Prof Calland for making himself available for this important task and for his understanding regarding the decision,” Mothapo said.
Calland said he had accepted that it may not be in the best interest of the parliamentary process for him to serve as a member of the panel.
“I am a fiercely independent person and so I absolutely reject the suggestion of bias that was made against me,” he said.
Calland said as a trained lawyer, he was capable of assessing evidence and reaching conclusions based on impartial application of the relevant laws or rules without fear or favour.
“And I would do so regardless of anything that I have said or written in the past in my role as a political commentator,” he added.
Calland said he had devoted his career to constitutional democracy and accountability, and the rule of law.
“Accordingly, I do not want unnecessary controversy over my appointment to divert attention from the real issues that are at stake or the possibility of undue delay arising from it, to clutter or otherwise impair the integrity of such an important constitutional process.”
DA chief whip Siviwe Gwarube said the removal of Calland was a victory for Parliament and the legitimacy of the Section 89 inquiry.
“Calland, while an expert in the field, has entered the political fray by routinely making his political views public. His inclusion would have been a spectacular error in judgement on the part of the Speaker and the institution,” Gwarube said.
EFF said it too welcomed the withdrawal of Calland from the panel.
“By withdrawing from the independent panel, Calland has rescued himself from further public humiliation because the EFF was going to pursue all necessary measures to ensure that he is exposed as a cheerleader, and removed from the panel,” the party said.
But the GOOD party, which nominated Calland, took a swipe at what it described as the official opposition’s disgraceful assault on Calland’s integrity by claiming he has written favourably about Ramaphosa.
“If the DA did its homework, it would also discover articles he’s penned that are critical of the President.
“To accuse Calland of being unable to perform a legal task without bias is a scandalous allegation made by a party increasingly developing a reputation for reactionary bleating and constitutional delinquency,” secretary-general Brett Herron said.
Meanwhile, parties debated a motion for the establishment of an ad hoc committee to investigate matters surrounding Phala Phala, with several opposition parties backing DA’s draft resolution while the ANC, supported by GOOD party, opposed it.
Speaking during the mini-plenary debate, Gwarube said Parliament now had a choice to simply turn a blind eye to the allegations because of party politics or do what was right.
“It cannot be under constitutional democracy that we have a sitting president accused of breaking the law with the aid of state institutions, left without answering questions,” she said.
Gwarube said while a Section 89 process was established to determine impeachment against Ramaphosa, it did not mean they should not be investigating other state institutions implicated in the saga.
“When history is written about the fifth Parliament, let it be that the House found its voice and put party interests aside in order to fulfil its legislative duty,” she said.
But ANC MP Mina Lesoma said the DA-led coalition wanted to take over the work of law enforcement agencies.
“It gets peculiar when they would like to investigate a matter that concerns a jurisdiction person. Phala Phala wildlife is a legal entity,” she said.
Lesoma also said there was agreement to establish the independent panel to conduct an inquiry on an impeachment motion.
“We all agreed, honourable chair, that this is the best process to establish fact and evidence, not hearsay,” she said.
EFF MP Omphile Maotwe said the ad hoc committee would deal with various issues cut across different departments, including failure by the SA Revenue Service, the Financial Intelligence Centre and others involved in the cover-up.
Maotwe said they would deal with the Section 89 process when its time came up.
The National Assembly will decide whether to establish an ad hoc committee this afternoon, and Ramaphosa returns to answer outstanding questions that remained from a chaotic session.
Cape Times
