The Democratic Alliance (DA) says it is going to be “considering its legal options” after Parliament refused to arrange a committee into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s $4 million theft saga.
Parliament on Saturday confirmed that National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula determined in opposition to establishing an Ad hoc Committee to look into the February 2020 theft on the president’s Phala Phala farm in Limpopo.
DA chief John Steenhuisen requested the institution of the committee when it comes to National Assembly Rule 253(1)(b).
This rule permits for the institution of such a committee “during the adjournment of the assembly for a period of more than 14 days, by the Speaker after consulting the Chief Whip and the most senior whip of each of the other parties”.
ALSO READ: Parliament received’t maintain Ramaphosa to account for farm theft, says skilled
“In her letter, the Speaker declined the request arguing that Rule 253 units out necessities for the institution of an Ad hoc Committee, and one in all them is the efficiency of a particular activity.
“While the request proposes a committee on Phala Phala, it goes on to list various distinct tasks for investigation. In the nature of the proposed investigation, this is understandable,” parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo stated in a statement.
“However, a few of the duties proposed are arguably, nonetheless throughout the purview of different entities or establishments, together with legislation enforcement, and should certainly necessitate parliament’s consideration sooner or later.
“At this stage, the various components raised by Mr Steenhuisen for parliamentary intervention are better suited for attention by the existing Parliamentary oversight structures,” Mothapo added.
‘Repurposing Parliament’
Reacting to the information, Steenhuisen criticised Mapisa-Nqakula for her determination, saying the Speaker was shielding “the executive, and the president himself, from the accountability”.
“Once once more, parliament is standing by and watching whereas our head of state is mired in critical allegations of theft, kidnapping, and the abuse of state assets – allegations which taint the workplace of the Presidency and will render President Ramaphosa wholly unfit to carry public workplace.
“The ANC is once again repurposing parliament as a rug under which it sweeps scandal and corruption out of sight of the public eye,” the DA chief stated in a statement on Saturday.
READ MORE: Ramaphosa farm theft: DA urges Parliament to summon Cele over cover-up allegations
Steenhuisen additional stated the opposition occasion would think about its authorized choices in difficult the Speaker’s determination.
“Parliament is not an extension of the ANC, and we will make sure our oversight institutions are never again sidelined to allow for cadres to revel in impunity,” he added.
Along with the Public Protector, the DA had already requested the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) within the United States (US), the South African Revenue Service (Sars) and the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) to additionally examine the Phala Phala theft.
The Public Protector’s workplace is already investigating Ramaphosa after the African Transformational Movement (ATM) filed the same grievance.
ATM request
Meanwhile, the ATM offered readability on claims that Mapisa-Nqakula additionally rejected its request for a Section 89 inquiry to be established.
In her letter to ATM president Vuyo Zungula, the Speaker had indicated that she was unable to find out which of the listed grounds in Section 89(1) was the occasion counting on.
“The Speaker has not declined the ATM’s [Section] 89 movement to take away Ramaphosa.
“She wants further details. She has basically asked the ATM to match the transgressions to particular paragraphs of [Section] 89(1). Ramaphosa has violated the entire [Section] 89(1). The ATM will comply [and] resubmit,” the occasion stated in a tweet on Sunday.
This will probably be second time the ATM submits its Section 89 movement.
Mapisa-Nqakula beforehand rejected the ATM’s preliminary request for a Section 89 inquiry after considering the “substantive issues raised” on the matter.
The Speaker stated the occasion’s request inquiry was not accompanied by substantive motions as required by parliament’s guidelines.
The ATM then resubmitted the movement, with the Speaker then signalling that she was considering the matter after receiving the occasion’s submission on 17 June.
The occasion had criticised Mapisa-Nqakula’s “silence” after two weeks handed with out a determination being communicated.
At the time, the ATM stated it might discover different choices ought to the Speaker had failed to answer their letter by 28 June.
NOW READ: ATM seeks ‘full control’ in IPID’s Phala Phala farm investigation
