The EFF wants to be included in the litigation in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s application to review the Section 89 panel’s report.

The party’s lawyers, Ian Levitt Attorneys, have written to Ramaphosa’s legal team, Harris Nupen Molebatsi Inc, noting the president’s application to review the report and particularly recommendations that he may have committed a serious violation of the Prevention and combating of corrupt activities Act (Precca) and also violated the constitution.

The EFF, through its lawyers noted that despite having made submissions to the panel chaired by retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, Ramaphosa and his lawyers have not cited it as a party in its application.

The EFF was one of the three political parties that made submissions to the panel.

“Furthermore, the EFF is the third biggest party represented in parliament, representing the interests of its constituents and the public at large. These factors establish a clear interest in the EFF being party to the proceedings,” reads the letter.

“In the circumstances and in the interest of limiting unnecessary litigious costs and to avoid unduly burdening the court’s time and resources, we appeal that you join the EFF as a party, alternatively, confirm that you will not oppose the EFF’s application to be so joined,” they said.

They gave them until the close of business on Wednesday to respond.

Ramaphosa cited the three legal experts, retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, retired judge Thokozile Masipa, Adv Mahlape Sello and National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula and the ATM president Vuyolwethu Zungula.

This comes after EFF chief whip Floyd Shivambu and MP Mbuyiseni Ndlozi insisted in the special meeting of the National Assembly’s programing committee on Monday night that parliament should oppose Ramaphosa’s application.

Shivambu said as the panel report was a parliament-sanctioned report, the national legislature had an obligation to oppose Ramaphosa’s application, which he said is trying to stop the institution from proceeding with the impeachment process.

“It will be a reversal of the accountability mechanisms that are put in place. We should have a decision that parliament should oppose the application by Ramaphosa, to try and invalidate an otherwise solid panel report which said he must be held accountable and must answer to certain questions,” said Shivambu.

He said as a parliament, which is supposed to hold the executive accountable, the only logical decision would be to go and defend “our right as parliament, otherwise we might as well dissolve parliament”.

Mapisa-Nqakula said parliament would not be stifled by another organ of state and only a clear directive from a court would stop it from proceeding.

She sought to assure MPs that one of the things they would do, is to emphasise the importance of the sovereignty of parliament.

“We do appreciate that here you have three arms of the state and parliament is one such arm, and therefore, not unless there is a clear directive or ruling of a court which directs us that some of these matters, for as long as there isn’t that kind of directive, we will proceed as we discussed here and agreed,” said Mapisa-Nqakula.

At the time of publication, Mapisa-Nqakula was still applying her mind as to whether to opposse Ramaphosa's court bid to set aside the Phala Phala report on judicial review.