DA leader Mmusi Maimane says he will be writing to President Cyril Ramaphosa on Sunday to request that he appoints an independent inquiry to fully investigate the Bosasa scandal, which now involves the President and his family.

Maimane said the inquiry should be headed by a retired judge to be selected by the Chief Justice. He wants it to investigate:

• The full extent of Bosasa’s corrupt influence on the government;
• All payments made by Bosasa to politicians, or their families, trusts or companies
• The full involvement of the President and his family to this scandal; and
• Any other related issues and payments.

“There can’t be double standards. President Ramaphosa has appointed independent inquiries to investigate corruption elsewhere. Now the same standard must apply to him and his family,” Maimane said in a statement issued on Sunday. 

“He must appoint an independent inquiry to investigate Bosasa’s enormous and likely corrupt influence on the government and the ANC.”

On Saturday Ramaphosa’s campaign team said it would pay back the R500 000 Bosasa donation that was given to his 2017 ANC presidential campaign

His team indicated in a statement that Ramaphosa was not involved in fundraising efforts. They said he also didn’t have a record of donors, although he was asked on occasion to attend dinners with potential donors.

The campaign team added: “At no point were any funds transferred to the Cyril Ramaphosa Foundation, his relations or to President Ramaphosa himself.”

READ: Ramaphosa’s campaign team says it will pay back Bosasa money

On Friday Ramaphosa said the donation by Bosasa CEO Gavin Watson was received without his knowledge in October 2017.

This emerged in a letter to the speaker of the National Assembly, stating that he had provided incorrect information when responding to questions in Parliament 11 days ago.

Ramaphosa was responding to a question from DA leader Mmusi Maimane over the payment by saying that he had questioned his son, Andile Ramaphosa and learned that the payment was in respect of a consultancy contract his son’s company had signed with Bosasa, now named African Global Operations. 

The president’s campaign management team said there were various structures, including a finance task team, whose sole responsibility was to raise funds for activities that would be undertaken by volunteers and other members of team CR17.

To avoid conflicts of interests and to eliminate any expectation of “reciprocal intent, action or preferential treatment by donors, real or perceived”, the fundraising team was isolated from other operations.

ALSO READ: Bosasa saga: Ramaphosa must admit he lied to parliament – Malema

Maimane has indicated that he has already submitted two separate applications in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) – one to the Presidency and one to the African Global Group – to gain access to the contract for services rendered by the Andile Ramaphosa to Bosasa.

“The President told Parliament that such a contract exists, and that he had personally seen it,” Maimane said. 

“This Inquiry should also determine whether the President lied to Parliament when he answered my question in the House about this payment,” he added. 

Dozens of people marched from John Ross Park to the Johannesburg City Council in Braamfontein on Friday morning, to protest the municipality’s charging of fees to protest.

The protest was led by Right2Know (R2K).

R2K demanded that the municipality stop charging fees for protests immediately. The group demanded the right to give notice of a protest any day of the week, in person, on paper or digitally and that the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police Department stop only accepting notices in person and only approving marches on Wednesdays.

Murray Hunter of R2K said the organisation was aware of only two municipalities that charged protest fees. He said this was unconstitutional as it forced people, particularly poor communities, to pay for a constitutional right.

READ: Charging people to protest doesn’t infringe on their constitutional rights – City of Joburg

“These fees can start at R180 and run into thousands of rands. How can you expect people to pay to exercise a constitutional right? We would not pay a fee to vote in elections and we should not pay a fee to participate in a protest,” read a memorandum handed to the office of Mayor Herman Mashaba.

For this march, the Metro Police and the municipality wanted R2K to pay a fee of R446 for “planning costs”.

According to R2K’s submission handed to Mashaba’s office, “The practices by the [municipality] detailed here are additional and unfair obstacles placed before people who are seeking to follow the lawful procedures set out in the Regulation of Gatherings Act.”

The Regulation of Gatherings Act is the law that regulates protests. The act states that any person has the right to express their views on any matter freely in public and to enjoy the protection of the state while doing so. The practice of this right, it says, should take place peacefully and with respect for other people’s rights.

The act says people intending to protest must give the municipality seven days notice and provide it with other information like contact details of the organisers, where the protest will take place, what time, and so on. Unless there is good reason to believe that the protest will lead to injury, property destruction or traffic disruption, it should be allowed. If there are any concerns of threats or disruptions, the act says the municipality and police should call a meeting with the protestors to negotiate a solution. There is no mention of protest fees in the act.

A coalition called Right2Protest (started with the assistance of R2K) has published the first annual State of Protest Report. The report says municipalities often use “bylaws”, which are rules set by local authorities, to stifle protest action.

“This matters because the right to assembly, peacefully and unarmed, is protected in section 17 of the Constitution. It is a crucial form of a freedom … [used] predominantly by poor and marginalised communities to make their voices heard and raise grievances on issues that matter to their lives,” read R2K’s submission.

Zodwa Madiba is an activist from the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee (SECC). Soweto falls under the City of Johannesburg municipality. Madiba said the SECC planned a march in Soweto about three years ago. She said the metro police wanted the organisation to pay a fee but the organisation did not have money. As a result, she said that the SECC is on a list of people and organisations that owe money to the municipality.

“We believe we shouldn’t pay for a march because it is our right and if it wasn’t for the municipality not delivering services like they promised us, we wouldn’t have to go to the streets in the first place,” said Madiba.

The memo was received by Community and Stakeholder Advisor to the Mayor Simangaliso Shongwe and a metro police representative. Shongwe said the municipality would respond within 14 days.

EFF leader Julius Malema has said that AfriForum won its cases against his party based on technicalities, rather than merit.

In an interview on eNCA on Thursday night, Malema said: “The mistake we made as the EFF was to hire incompetent people who lack professionalism, who are not in a position to follow up matters before court in detail.

“We have restructured the legal team of the EFF.”

Malema said the EFF’s lawyers are on retainer and get paid monthly but “fail to do simple things of following up which case is coming when”.

Malema said previous counsel told the EFF that “just filing a notice to oppose was enough”, but “the new lawyers are saying it’s not enough, you ought to file a notice to oppose and then still file an affidavit”.

Five cases lost

News24 reported on Thursday that the EFF had lost two battles in court with costs against AfriForum.

This brings to five the number of court cases the red berets have lost to AfriForum since March 2017.

On Wednesday, the EFF sought to interdict a warrant allowing the seizure of its movable assets from its Johannesburg office, but failed after the court found that the matter was not urgent.

That means the previous judgment to grant costs stands, and the EFF should pay back the costs AfriForum incurred.

The EFF paid just over R126 000 of the R333 000 which was meant to be paid on Tuesday, and now it has an escalated burden after Wednesday’s two judgments.

[Watch]: CIC @Julius_S_Malema addressing the issue of Afriforum “winning” cases against the EFF. He clarifies that Afriforum won cases without merit but technicalities. Now that we have correct issues with our legal team, they can bring it on! pic.twitter.com/sXFQ7l1Gjm

— Economic Freedom Fighters (@EFFSouthAfrica) November 15, 2018

On November 1, AfriForum obtained a warrant from the same court to seize movable assets belonging to EFF commander-in-chief Julius Malema and for the EFF to pay an amount of R337 758.68 owed to AfriForum by Malema in his personal capacity and the EFF as a party.

An attachment process was carried out by the sheriff on November 9, during which a number of assets were identified as those to be removed to recoup the costs.

In another court appearance, the red berets and Malema were held in contempt of court for ignoring a court order interdicting the party from inciting illegal land invasions.

AfriForum’s Kallie Kriel said: “EFF legal representatives did not pitch, and the court ordered against them with costs.”

‘Legal team incompetent’

Malema blamed an incompetent legal team for the losses.

“People call themselves lawyers, people call themselves black lawyers, and they want to be empowered in the name of black lawyers, even when they are offering me joke (sic),” Malema told eNCA.

“That has been dealt with. We have sorted out our legal team.

“Look at the cost of the AfriForum [case], the first interdict on the occupation of land was unopposed. Why would the EFF not oppose a matter like that? It is because of mediocre and unprofessionalism from the legal team of the EFF.”

READ: Malema denies calling Thandeka Gqubule a Stratcom spy

Malema said the EFF applied to rescind the earlier judgment, but, because the party did not file an affidavit after filing leave to appeal, “AfriForum set the matter up to be heard by the court without us [so] we [got] dismissed with costs”.

‘Bring it on’

“So [AfriForum has] not won on the merits, they’ve won on technicalities of the EFF not being present. Now, we have corrected that,” Malema said.

“Bring it on, papa, let’s go into the merits, we are not scared of these boers. They were winning in our absence,” Malema warned.

#AfriForum says it will however meet with #EFF legal team, should it wish to do so, to talk about the possibility of of not removing attached items, so long the Red Berets commits to paying back the money. @TeamNews24 pic.twitter.com/xzDUoX09Bl

— Pelane Phakgadi (@PelaneM) November 14, 2018