Richard Calland quits Phala Phala panel amid objections

University of Cape Town law professor Richard Calland has quit a panel to determine whether President Cyril Ramaphosa has a case to answer in parliament for the Phala Phala saga.

Calland’s inclusion in the independent panel of three, appointed by parliament speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, has been met with objections from opposition parties.

The panel would include retired high court judge Thokozile Masipa and retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo as chair.

The panel would look into whether there was prima facie evidence of misconduct against Ramaphosa. This follows allegations that millions in foreign currency were stolen from his Limpopo farm in 2020, and that there were efforts involving state apparatus to conceal the robbery.

The parties had argued Calland had shown “consistent bias towards the president, which makes him unsuitable for this role”.

On Tuesday Mapisa-Nqakula wrote to the DA’s parliamentary chief whip Siviwe Gwarube informing her she had taken note of their and the EFF’s objections, and had decided to withdraw Calland’s name from the independent panel.

Mapisa-Nqakula also said she had asked Calland to respond to the allegations against him, in which he agreed his inclusion would compromise the work of the panel.

She said in the letter: “I have considered these submissions together with legal advice on the matter. Having taken into account all relevant factors, it appears Prof Calland’s appointment may, in his own words ‘clutter or otherwise impair’ the process, therefore I have decided to withdraw his appointment. A third panelist will be appointed from among the nominations received by parties.”

In a statement released on Tuesday, Calland said he had accepted the decision to withdraw his name from the panel.

He said he agreed with the speaker’s view that his participation in the process may not be in the best interest of the parliamentary process.

“I am a fiercely independent person and I absolutely reject the suggestion of bias made against me,” he said.

“As a trained lawyer, I am capable of assessing the evidence and reaching conclusions based on an impartial application of the relevant law or rules without fear or favour. And I would do so regardless of anything I have said or written in the past in my role as a political commentator.”

He said he was also of the view that his appointment would cloud the process in some form which may “clutter or otherwise impair” the integrity of the panel and divert the attention from its work.

“I am grateful to the Good party for nominating me and also for their staunch public support for my professional independence and integrity, and wish parliament the very best as it embarks on this landmark process.”

TimesLIVE