UNDER WHICH CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS THE CONCOURT ORDERED RAMAPHOSA’S IMPEACHMENT?

Let me state upfront that I am not a lawyer and that I don’t even aspire to be one.

I am ok at the moment as a mere reporter.

But the Constitutional Court ruling against Parliament and by obvious extension against President Cyril Ramaphosa has set me thinking.

In my opinion the Concourt’s decision to oder the impeachment of Ramaphosa is a classic case of judicial overreach.

The Concourt has overstepped its mandate by telling Parliament what to do.

By refusing to impeach Ramaphosa the Parliamentarians had used existing clauses and rules.

Now the said clauses or rules have been found to be unconstitutional by the Concourt and my question is on which rule or clause now in the Constitution of South Africa has the Concourt ordered the impeachment of Ramaphosa?

There was a rule which dictated that Parliament can block a Section 89 report from proceeding to the impeachment stage.

Now is there presently a written rule or clause which specifically says Parliamentarians must not stop a Section 89 panel from proceeding to the impeachment stage?

Is there such a rule?

Where?

The Constitutional Court used its own discretion to arbitrarily order Ramaphosa’s impeachment and the said call for impeachment is illegal as it is not written in the statute books.

The Constitutional Court is taking over the role of making laws of this country.

The Concourt’s role is to interpret existing laws and not to manufacture new ones.

The Concourt should have just declared the said clauses or rules unconstitutional and left it at that.

For the Concourt to brazenly say Ramaphosa must be impeached is akin to the proverbial witch-hunt.

It seems like the Concourt has long been waiting for an opportunity to sort out Ramaphosa.

For a law to enforce punishment it must generally include a punishment clause or refer to a penal statue that defines the crime, the penalty and most importantly in the case of Ramaphosa the procedure for applying such a law.

It must be remembered that Ramaphosa wanted to appeal the findings of the Section 89 panel but dropped the matter after Parliament used existing laws at the time to stop the report from reaching the impeachment stages.

This means Ramaphosa must be given a chance to appeal the report of the Section 89 panel as initially intended.

It is harrowing to see that the Constitutional Court’s order is akin to a law that is applied retrospectively.

This is like saying: starting now all people in same sex marriages and those found guilty of murder will be hanged.

This as someone might have called for the existing laws in this regard to be declared unconstitutional.

As the Constitutional Court insists that Ramaphosa has contravened the Constitution, punishment and procedures had up until now been in place as to how a case like that of Ramaphosa should be tackled.

Ramaphosa contravened laws of the Constitution which state that after a section 89 panel has ruled that he has a case to answer, Parliament may stop further investigations in this regard.

He didn’t break a law or clause that says after Section 89 panel has ruled that he has a case to answer, then he must be impeached with immediate effect without an appeal and that Parliament must not stop his possible impeachment.

If a person is found guilty of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment will it be right to wake him up early in the morning one day and take them to the gallows because the previous night the Constitutional Court had ruled that the death sentence must be reintroduced?

In his response to the Section 89 panel Ramaphosa indicated that he asked his chief bodyguard Wally Rhode to report the case on his behalf.

Was Ramaphosa expected to personally go to a police station and disrupt police work there with his convoy and security personnel; resulting in ordinary citizens being unable to access any services from station?

Ramaphosa also pointed out that a Sudanese businessman is the one who brought the 580 00 USA dollars to his farm and the said businessman has indeed announced numerous times that he is the one who brought the money to Ramaphosa’s farm after clearing it with customs officials.

Why hasn’t the Section 89 panel summonsed the said businessman to come and give evidence at its hearings.

Or did the Section 89 panel just assume that the businessesman was lying?

Ramaphosa has also told the Section 89 panel that Phala-Phala was not run by himself but that he had established a trust fund made up of professionals to run the farm.

Did the Section 89 panel try to verify this response?

Or did it again just assume Ramaphosa was lying?