The Constitutional Court has rejected African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyolwethu Zungula’s bid to take his legal challenge over President Cyril Ramaphosa’s interim interdict against his impeachment process directly to the apex court.
In an order issued on Wednesday, the Constitutional Court found that it would not be in the interests of justice to hear the matter at this stage, given that a review application is still pending before the Western Cape High Court.
The apex court held that the outcome of the High Court proceedings could ultimately render the interim interdict at the centre of the dispute moot. Ramaphosa has been successful in interdicting the impeachment committee from proceeding with its work pending his review application of the Section 89 report into Phala Phala.
Also Read: Cyril Ramaphosa says bid to overturn Phala Phala interdict lacks merit
“The Court has also concluded that it is not in the interests of justice to hear the matter at this stage, given the imminent determination of the review in the Western Cape Division of the High Court, the outcome of which will render the interim interdict moot. Consequently, leave to file a replying affidavit and leave to appeal must be refused. The court has decided not to award costs,” the order states.
The legal challenge involves Zungula and the ATM, as well as the chairperson of Parliament’s impeachment committee, Makashule Gana, and opposition parties including the Economic Freedom Fighters and the uMkhonto weSizwe Party.
Ramaphosa and National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza are among the respondents.
High court decision ‘constitutionally harmful’
In his founding affidavit, Zungula argued that the majority’s 2-1 decision to grant Ramaphosa a temporary interdict was “irredeemably vague” and “constitutionally harmful”.
He warned that the judgment could create a precedent that would allow future presidents facing impeachment proceedings to use the courts to halt the parliamentary process.
Zungula also relied on the dissenting judgment, which cautioned that, if left undisturbed, the ruling could allow Ramaphosa to seek further interdicts against subsequent stages of the impeachment process.
According to Zungula, the implications could extend beyond the current case, with any future president facing impeachment potentially relying on the same legal principle to seek an interdict.
He further argued that the split judgment could become the definitive authority on the principles governing interim interdicts in presidential impeachment matters.
Also Read: Ramaphosa impeachment process further tears at ANC-DA alliance
The latest legal development comes as Ramaphosa continues with his challenge to the Section 89 panel report, which found that there was prima facie evidence of possible wrongdoing relating to the theft of about $580 000, worth approximately R9.6 million at the time, from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020. While the impeachment committee is limited to preparatory work until the review is concluded.
Ramaphosa’s review application is scheduled to be heard by the Western Cape High Court from September 2 to 4.
The dispute follows a Constitutional Court judgment earlier this year in which the court found that Parliament had acted unlawfully when it blocked further impeachment proceedings against Ramaphosa in December 2022.
Parliament was subsequently ordered to establish a formal impeachment committee to investigate the allegations against the president.
- The Constitutional Court rejected African Transformation Movement leader Vuyolwethu Zungula's attempt to directly appeal over President Cyril Ramaphosa's interim interdict related to his impeachment process.
- The court ruled it was not in the interests of justice to hear the matter before the Western Cape High Court concludes its review, which could nullify the interim interdict.
- Ramaphosa successfully interdicts the impeachment committee from proceeding pending his review application of the Section 89 report into the Phala Phala theft.
- Zungula argued that the High Court's majority 2-1 decision to grant Ramaphosa the interim interdict was vague, constitutionally harmful, and could set a precedent allowing future presidents to halt impeachment proceedings through court interdicts.
- Ramaphosa's review application regarding the Section 89 report from the Phala Phala case is scheduled for hearing before the Western Cape High Court from September 2 to 4.
In an order issued on Wednesday, the Constitutional Court found that it would not be in the interests of justice to hear the matter at this stage, given that a review application is still pending before the Western Cape High Court.
Also Read: Cyril Ramaphosa says bid to overturn Phala Phala interdict lacks merit
"
Ramaphosa and National
In his founding affidavit,
He warned that the judgment could create a precedent that would allow future presidents facing impeachment proceedings to use the courts to halt the parliamentary process.
He further argued that the split judgment could become the definitive authority on the principles governing interim interdicts in presidential impeachment matters.
Also Read: Ramaphosa impeachment process further tears at ANC-DA alliance
Ramaphosa's review application is scheduled to be heard by the Western Cape High Court from
Parliament was subsequently ordered to establish a formal impeachment committee to investigate the allegations against the president.
