This is according to the section 89 panel of legal experts, headed by retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo.
The panel said in light of all the information placed before it,"we conclude that this information discloses,, that the president may have committed a serious violation of sections 96 and a serious violation of section 34 of the Prevention and and combating of Corrupt Activities Act, a serious misconduct in that the president violated section 96 of the constitution by acting in a way that is inconsistent with his office, and a serious misconduct in that the president violated section 96 by...
That section provides for the National Assembly to remove a president from office on the grounds of a serious violation of the constitution or the law, serious misconduct and an inability to perform the functions of office. The party charged that he violated the constitution, which prohibits members of the cabinet and deputy ministers from “undertaking any other paid work”, among other things. It also suggested Ramaphosa tried to cover up the robbery as he did not report it to the police, as required by law.
In June, former state security director-general Arthur Fraser opened a criminal case against Ramaphosa about the robbery.Support independent journalism by subscribing to the Sunday Times. Just R20 for the first month.
So he fits right into the ANC.....
Fok
According to the panel...not our law enforcement
That's Treason just state it legally so...
Notorious businessman and politicians shouldn't be allowed in sensitive offices both political and technical.
Why use word may? The report should have conclusive findings that he violated the law.
May have neh...