The Constitutional Court has moved closer to deciding whether it will hear an urgent appeal against the order that stopped Parliament’s public impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya has directed Ramaphosa, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the chairperson of Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee and political parties involved in the matter to file their responding papers by August 5.
Court directives set wheels in motion
The directions place the dispute over Parliament’s power to continue its constitutional accountability process before the country’s highest court, which must now decide whether the impeachment hearings remain suspended or whether Parliament can resume the public phase of the process.
The African Transformation Movement (ATM) and its parliamentary leader Vuyolwethu Zungula approached the Constitutional Court after the Western Cape High Court granted Ramaphosa an interim interdict preventing Parliament from proceeding with public hearings into the Phala Phala matter.
The ATM is asking the apex court to urgently intervene and overturn the order, arguing that the judgement lets a president facing accountability proceedings delay parliamentary scrutiny by using litigation.
Setting a dangerous precedent
In his founding affidavit, Zungula argues that the ruling creates a dangerous constitutional precedent because it could allow future presidents to halt impeachment-related processes before Parliament completes its work.
The ATM argues that the public hearings form part of Parliament’s constitutional duty to conduct impeachment proceedings openly and that stopping them undermines public participation.
The applicants have asked the Constitutional Court to hear the matter directly and urgently between August 10 and 14, arguing that the ordinary appeal process would take too long while the parliamentary process remains frozen.
The dispute follows Ramaphosa’s successful High Court application to suspend the public phase of the impeachment process while he challenges findings made by the independent panel appointed under section 89 of the Constitution.
The panel found that there was sufficient evidence for Parliament to consider whether Ramaphosa had committed a serious violation or misconduct linked to the Phala Phala farm matter.
The Western Cape High Court majority, Judges Diane Davis and André le Grange ADJP, found that Ramaphosa had established a basis for interim protection while his review challenge was pending.
Judge Matthew Francis dissented, arguing that the order interfered with Parliament’s constitutional role and gave insufficient weight to the public interest in accountability.
The Constitutional Court must now decide whether the matter raises issues of constitutional importance, whether it should bypass the normal appeal route and whether the High Court order should remain in place.
The respondents’ papers due on August 5 will set out why they believe the appeal should not proceed or why the High Court order should stand.
- The Constitutional Court is considering whether to hear an urgent appeal challenging the suspension of Parliament’s public impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
- Chief Justice Mandisa Maya has ordered involved parties to submit responses by August 5 to decide if the impeachment hearings can resume.
- The African Transformation Movement (ATM) argues the suspension threatens constitutional accountability and sets a precedent for presidents to delay scrutiny through litigation.
- The original High Court order granted Ramaphosa interim protection from public hearings while he challenges impeachment panel findings related to the Phala Phala matter.
- The Constitutional Court will determine if the case raises constitutional issues, if the appeal should be expedited, and whether the High Court suspension order should remain.
Chief Justice
In his founding affidavit,
Judge
