Did Ramaphosa act in bad faith? Lawyer questions Phala Phala panel report

President Cyril Ramaphosa has contested the findings of an independent panel that investigated allegations surrounding the theft of $580,000 from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo. In a three-day hearing at the Western Cape High Court, Ramaphosa's legal team, led by Advocate Wim Trengove, argued that the panel had not properly applied impeachment rules, particularly the requirement that Ramaphosa's actions were intentional and in bad faith.

The panel's report concluded that Ramaphosa had a case to answer over the theft, but Trengove contended that the panel had overlooked the necessity for intentional and wrongful conduct. He emphasized that Ramaphosa believed he acted in good faith, having reported the theft to the head of the Presidential Protection Unit. Trengove challenged the panel's interpretation of the evidentiary threshold required for impeachment proceedings, arguing that the panel had misinterpreted the distinction between "prima facie" evidence and "a case to answer."

According to Trengove, the process begins with the Speaker of the National Assembly establishing a prima facie case, which the independent panel must then determine is sufficient to warrant a full impeachment inquiry. The president's legal team relied on the panel's own acknowledgement of the seriousness of the impeachment process and the need for sufficient evidence before proceeding.

If the court rules in favor of Ramaphosa, it could have significant implications for the ongoing legal and political battle surrounding the Phala Phala scandal.