Claim 2: “The charges in the ATM notice of motion in the National Assembly are essentially that Ramaphosa: Undertook paid work as a farmer while holding the office of President; Failed to report alleged corruption (the theft of the money from his private residence) to the SAPS; Was conflicted by using General Wally Rhoode and the Presidential Protection Unit for personal purposes by getting them to investigate an issue related to his private business; and Misconducted himself by unlawfully instructing Rhoode to investigate the theft rather than reporting it to the SAPS.”

Claim 4: “The Constitutional Court... amended NA Rule 129... to provide that once the independent panel concludes that sufficient evidence of serious misconduct by the President exists, the matter must be referred to an impeachment committee of the National Assembly”

Claim 6: “the panel found that there is prima facie evidence supporting the four allegations made by the ATM and that the alleged misconduct, if proven, would be “serious”.”

Claim 7: “the Constitutional Court... held that NA Rule 129 inappropriately permitted the National Assembly to terminate the impeachment process at a preliminary stage, before a full inquiry could be conducted”

Claim 8: “on 13 December 2022, the report of the panel... came before the National Assembly... The National Assembly voted by a majority of 214 to 149 against proceeding with the impeachment inquiry”