Cape Town - The credibility of the three-member independent panel established to determine whether President Cyril Ramaphosa has a case to answer regarding the Farmgate scandal has been called into question even before it began its probe.
This is because one of its members, UCT’s public law Professor Richard Calland, had repeatedly and openly declared his support for Ramaphosa through a series of tweets and retweets, according to some parties in Parliament including political foes, the DA and EFF.
DA leader John Steenhuisen said by no stretch of the imagination can Calland be regarded as independent.
Among Calland’s tweets are praises for Ramaphosa showing up at the hotly contested KwaZulu-Natal elective con- ference, where he wrote: “Credit to @ CyrilRamaphosa for going there and not chickening out.
Credit to @CyrilRamaphosa for going there and not chickening out. Exposes them for the ill-disciplined, sell-out, counter-revolutionary rabble they are. https://t.co/nlzZj0Pa56
“Some applause, no booing, at the end. @CyrilRamaphosa neutralised them by turning up and facing them down #KZNANCconference.”
“Now he’s moved on from his script, and is speaking directly to the #KZNANCconference” “@CyrilRamaphosa is much more compelling. He is looking them in the eye and calling their bluff.”
Calland also shared his views on the Farmgate scandal he is to probe when commenting on Ramaphosa’s refusal to answer questions in Parliament: “It’s a tactical blunder of note. @CyrilRamaphosa will be hoist (sic) by his own process petard in this case. It just looks shady; like he has something significant to hide. It looks weak”
Calland, former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo and former judge Thokozile Masipa were announced as the three-member panel on Wednesday.
The panel is a sequel to the motion tabled by ATM leader Vuyo Zungula after former State Security Agency boss Arthur Fraser lodged a criminal complaint alleging Ramaphosa committed serious crimes.
These included bribery, money laundering, kidnapping, breaching of customs and excise laws, breaching of Sars regulations, breaching the Prevention of Organised Crime Act and defeating the ends of justice.
The ATM said in its motion Ramaphosa violated the Constitution which provided that Cabinet members should not “undertake any other paid work”.
However it did not take long for political parties to be divided over Calland’s name being included, with the DA questioning his independence.
“Professor Calland has, through his political commentary and social media pronouncements, displayed a consistent bias towards the president which makes him unsuitable for this role given that this panel must be free from any hint of bias.
“It is therefore unclear why the Speaker (Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula) –aware of the sensitivity of this process – would select someone who cannot be viewed as an independent panel member based on this public work over the years,” chief whip Siviwe Gwarube said.
The EFF described Mapisa-Nqakula’s decision to include Calland on the panel as irrational, biased and in complete disregard of the consultative process with parties.
The party said she had no regard for the nominations by the majority of the opposition parties and her action was “essentially a spit in the face of SA people and our democracy”.
“The independent panel will undoubtedly be biassed and will favour Ramaphosa by defending his money laundering and use of state resources to conceal a crime as not an ethical breach of the Constitution.
“The most appalling of the appointment is that of Richard Calland, who is an associate professor at UCT and an unrepentant advocate and admirer of Ramaphosa,” the party said in a statement.
While attempts to get Calland’s comment were unsuccessful, GOOD Party secretary Brett Herron took a swipe at the DA for its “disgraceful assault” on Calland’s integrity who he said was a legal professional, an academic and a social commentator of repute.
“He has contributed significantly to the strengthening of South Africa’s democratic institutions,” he said.
“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,” Herron said.
ATM spokesperson Sibusiso Mncwabe said his party was alive to some of Calland’s complimentary public comments towards Ramaphosa.
“However, in good faith we will not delay the process challenging his appointment. The view we take as the ATM is that all the panellists will conduct themselves in an objective manner and ensure that the objects of the Constitution are upheld, defended and respected,” Mncwabe said.
UDM leader Bantu Holomisa said: “Any steps they take must be justifiable to the satisfaction of the people. The sooner they start, the better. Calland is also legally qualified. I do have confidence that they will tell us there is a prima facie case ... The panel has the easiest ever work.”
Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said Mapisa-Nqakula did not nominate any of the panel members.
“The 17 nominees were recommended by political parties in the Assembly from which the Speaker selected the panel,” Mothapo said.
Political analyst Ongama Mtimka said: “While Professor Calland can be trusted to be able to contribute to the process in good faith, the furore around his appointment should be enough for him to consider declining it.
“Two things will be a challenge; he is going to have a burden to prove people wrong and that cannot be good, or the public may reject the results regardless of the rigour that may be followed by the committee in arriving at its decisions, especially if it favours the president”.
Analyst Professor Sipho Seepe said a “compromised” panel undermined the whole exercise.
“Calland has been active in giving commentary that is largely supportive and favourable to Ramaphosa. This renders him unsuitable for the role he should perform. If he has any integrity, he would recuse himself and not wait to be pushed by concerned parties.
It is important that the exercise is not compromised by his presence.
Hopefully the objections by parties will make the Speaker reconsider her proposal. Nothing less would satisfy the notion that says justice must be seen to be done,” said Seepe.
Cape Times