The vote in the National Assembly on whether or not to adopt the Phala Phala report is over – with the majority of members voting against it.
On Tuesday, 214 MPs voted ‘no’. There were 148 votes for ‘yes’, with two abstentions.
The results of the vote mean President Cyril Ramaphosa won’t face impeachment proceedings at this stage.
Four ANC MPs voted ‘yes’
Not all ANC MPs toed the party line though. Four ANC members – Supra Mahumapelo, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Thandiwe Zungu and Mosebenzi Zwane – voted for the Phala Phala panel’s report to be adopted.
Tourism Minister Lindiwe Sisulu, along with Bongani Bongo and Zweli Mkhize, all high-profile opponents of Ramaphosa, were not present to cast their votes.
ALSO READ: Phala Phala: Must Ramaphosa go? These ANC members voted ‘yes’
One vote changed
Tandi Mahambehlala initially voted yes but later changed her vote, citing confusion.
She at first said “party line”. When asked again, she said “yes”. Moments later, after realising her answers contradicted each other, she asked for her vote to be recorded as “no”.
EFF leader Julius Malema, however, said changing votes should not be allowed.
“To ask a person to correct the vote is extremely wrong,” he said. “It is wrong to say a person can correct a vote.”
The DA’s chief whip Siviwe Gwarube agreed, emphasising that Parliament’s rules do not allow for MPs to change their votes.
GOOD Party leader Patricia de Lille and MP Brett Herron abstained from voting.
Earlier, Herron had proposed that the vote be postponed. He argued that Ramaphosa should not face an impeachment process until his review application with the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) has been completed.
ALSO READ: GOOD Party believes Phala Phala vote should have been postponed
Ramaphosa, earlier in December, filed papers at the ConCourt to review and set aside the Section 89 report.
Phala Phala report
The Phala Phala panel’s report said that Ramaphosa had a case to answer regarding the money that was stolen from his game farm in Limpopo.
The panel, led by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, found that there is “prima facie” evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated sections 96(2)(a) of the constitution and 34(1) of PRECCA, with the aim of keeping the investigation of the burglary private.
