EFF to boycott Ramaphosa’s Budget Vote reply over alleged constitutional breaches

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) announced on Wednesday that its parliamentary caucus would boycott President Cyril Ramaphosa’s reply to the Budget Vote 1 debate on the Presidency, saying they would not lend political legitimacy to a leader they regard as unfit to hold office.

Reason for the boycott

The party said the boycott was prompted by Ramaphosa’s decision to approach the courts to review a ruling that found Parliament’s earlier rejection of the Section 89 Independent Panel Report unconstitutional. The EFF described the move as an attempt by the President to avoid accountability.

“Ramaphosa, who is currently attempting to avoid accountability by asking the courts to review the Section 89 Independent Panel Report, which found prima facie evidence that he may have committed serious violations of the Constitution and the law, does not deserve an audience in parliament until impeachment proceedings against him are concluded,” EFF said.

Origins and legal developments

The EFF traced the dispute to December 2022, when Ramaphosa first sought a court review of the panel’s findings ahead of a scheduled National Assembly vote. The party said he later withdrew that application after the ANC parliamentary majority voted to reject the report.

According to the reporting, a High Court judgment later found Parliament’s rejection of the panel report to be unconstitutional and irrational, and ordered the impeachment process to resume. The President has launched a fresh review application against that judgment.

Allegations and wider criticism

The Phala Phala scandal was described in the report as centring on allegations that large sums of foreign currency were concealed inside furniture at the President’s private game farm. The EFF accused Ramaphosa of mobilising state resources to protect himself rather than submitting to scrutiny.

“Millions of dollars were concealed in furniture at the President’s private farm. Instead of submitting himself to scrutiny and accountability, Ramaphosa mobilised the resources of the state to protect himself and ensure that the full truth about Phala Phala never emerges,” EFF said.

Criticism of parliamentary leadership

The EFF also criticised National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, accusing her of shielding the President instead of upholding Parliament’s constitutional accountability obligations. The party drew parallels with the conduct of two predecessors, naming Baleka Mbete and Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula in that context.

“Her reluctance to oppose Ramaphosa’s attempts to frustrate and delay the impeachment process is a clear indication that she is complicit in efforts to sabotage constitutional accountability,” EFF said.

Link to Budget Vote stance

The EFF said it had already voted against Budget Vote 1 during the Presidency debate and therefore saw no reason to take part in the President’s reply. The party used forceful language to frame its broader political critique of the administration.

“This Presidency is sustained by the blood of unemployed youth who have been abandoned by government. It is sustained by the blood of workers whose labour continues to enrich elites, while millions remain trapped in poverty,” said the party.

Commitment to disclosure

The EFF said it remained committed to ensuring full disclosure about the Phala Phala matter and insisted that no individual should be placed above the law.

“We remain committed to ensuring that the truth about Phala Phala is fully exposed and that no individual, regardless of wealth, status or political office, is ever placed above the law.”