A Classic Display of Stalingrad Tactics To DELAY Ramaphosa Accountability over Phala Phala

ActionSA opposed today’s decision by Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee to rescind the nomination of Advocate Thandazani Madonsela SC as Evidence Leader, a decision we regard as a classic display of Stalingrad delay tactics that takes Parliament further away from the question it should already be seized with: President Cyril Ramaphosa’s accountability over Phala Phala.

The pattern has become painfully familiar: Delay. Dilute. Distract.

An Evidence Leader was nominated through a valid Committee process. The ANC abstained. Its Secretary-General subsequently wrote to Parliament, expressly stating that he was not objecting to the nomination. The President then objected. Parliament sought legal advice. The Committee reconsidered. Today, the nomination was rescinded.

After all of that, we are back to looking for an Evidence Leader instead of looking at the evidence. That is Stalingrad by procedure.

Parliament’s own legal advice confirmed that Adv Madonsela’s nomination was validly decided and that the information available did not establish an actual conflict of interest. The Committee was nevertheless required to consider whether the subsequent information created a perceived conflict and to afford the President procedural fairness. It has now done so. 

Particularly concerning is that GNU partners voted in concert to secure the rescission. The DA’s position is especially difficult to reconcile. It argued that Adv Madonsela’s nomination had been arrived at through a democratic and fair Committee process yet proceeded to vote to rescind the outcome of that very process.

This comes against the backdrop that Advocate Kate Hofmeyr SC, originally nominated by ActionSA and subsequently also by the DA, does not presently enjoy majority support in the Committee. The DA cannot speak from both sides of its mouth: defending the legitimacy of the process while voting to overturn its outcome when the political arithmetic proves inconvenient. That hypocrisy must not be lost on the South African public.

The ANC’s conduct raises its own questions. It did not vote for a counter-candidate against Adv Madonsela. Its members sat on the Committee, participated in the process and abstained when Adv Madonsela’s nomination was put to the vote. ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula subsequently wrote to Parliament regarding Adv Madonsela’s previous legal work for the ANC. Something ANC Members conveniently opted not to mention during the meeting.

Furthermore, disguised as objectivity, Mbalula’s letter expressly stated that it did not constitute an objection to Adv Madonsela’s appointment and did not question his integrity or independence.

Beware the double-speak.

President Ramaphosa subsequently exercised his right to object. ActionSA accepted that the President was entitled to procedural fairness and that his objection had to be considered. It has been considered. Procedural fairness cannot now become procedural infinity. The danger is that Parliament simply exchanges one deadlock for another.

Adv Madonsela has now been removed with the support of GNU partners. Adv Hofmeyr, despite ActionSA’s confidence in her competence and suitability, is unlikely to receive the support of the Progressive Caucus led by the EFF and MK Party. 

If the GNU vetoes a candidate acceptable to one bloc and the Progressive Caucus vetoes a candidate acceptable to another, the only guaranteed winner is delay.

As the African proverb warns: When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. In this fight, the grass is presidential accountability. South Africans should also not be distracted by an inflated conception of the Evidence Leader’s role. The Evidence Leader does not adjudicate President Ramaphosa’s fate, make the Committee’s findings or vote on its recommendations. Parliament does. 

Yet Parliament risks spending more time deciding who will carry the evidence into the room than examining the evidence itself. That is precisely why we refer to this as Stalingrad by procedure: one objection leads to another opinion, another meeting, another vote and now another appointment process, while the substantive preparatory process and the enquiry itself remain stalled. 

The Committee has made its decision on Adv Madonsela. ActionSA disagreed with it, but that chapter must now close. There can be no restarting of the clock and no prolonged horse-trading over his replacement.

The Evidence Leader may change. The evidence does not. Neither does President Ramaphosa’s obligation to account. A competent and independent Evidence Leader must now be appointed urgently so that Parliament can get to the work South Africans expect of it.

ActionSA Economic Stance: Supports a free-market economy with reduced red tape.