President Cyril Ramaphosa has formally opposed an application seeking to overturn a court order that temporarily halted Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment inquiry into the Phala Phala saga.
Court papers filed in the Constitutional Court on Wednesday show that Ramaphosa has lodged a notice of intention to oppose the application brought by Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee, the EFF, African Transformation Movement (ATM), uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) and United Africans Transformation (UAT).
The application seeks to overturn an interim order granted by the Western Cape High Court, which prevented the impeachment committee from hearing oral evidence pending the outcome of a review application brought by Ramaphosa. The committee and the political parties want the Constitutional Court to set aside the interim interdict so that the impeachment process can proceed without further delay.
‘Application is legally flawed’
However, in his answering affidavit, Ramaphosa argues that the application is legally flawed, lacks merit and is based on an incorrect interpretation of both the Constitutional Court’s earlier judgment and the High Court’s interim order.
“The applications share one premise: that the High Court blocked or suspended an order of this court. That premise is wrong. This court did not order that an impeachment hearing be held. It referred a report to a committee,” Ramaphosa states.
He argues that the High Court did not interfere with a Constitutional Court order but merely granted interim relief pending the determination of the review proceedings.
Ramaphosa also contends there is no urgency for the Constitutional Court to intervene because the review application is due to be heard by the Western Cape High Court from September 2 to 4.
“The High Court hears the review from 2-4 September 2026. That is a matter of weeks away. Even on the timetable the applicants propose, this court would be hard put to decide an appeal before the High Court decides the review.
‘Nothing is lost waiting’
“Nothing is lost waiting. On the Impeachment Committee’s own account it has not adopted its terms of reference and has not appointed evidence leaders. It can hardly hold a hearing in the third term of Parliament whether or not the High Court granted the interdict.”
He also questions whether some of the applicants are acting in the public interest, arguing that several are directly involved in the impeachment process and have already taken a political position against him.
“I do not accept that the applicants act in the public interest, and I do not accept that my political opponents on the Impeachment Committee approach the matter with detachment.
“Mr Zungula and the ATM filed the motion that initiated the process to impeach me. They supplemented their submission to the panel and urged it to find that I have a case to answer. If the committee finds against me and the National Assembly votes on the matter, ATM and the other applicants will likely vote to impeach me, as they would be entitled to. That position is difficult to reconcile with the principle that no one should judge his own case.”
‘Applicants have failed to establish urgency’
Ramaphosa further argues that the applicants have failed to establish urgency, pointing out that the impeachment process has been under way for four years since ATM first tabled the motion seeking his removal from office.
“The applicants took their own time to bring the process to its present stage,” he says, adding that the impeachment committee is “in no position to proceed with hearings in the third quarter” in any event.
The legal battle unfolds as Parliament’s Section 89 Committee continues preparing for the inquiry despite the suspension of oral hearings. On Wednesday, the committee recommended Adv Thandazani Madonsela SC as its preferred evidence leader, with the recommendation now awaiting formal appointment by Parliament.
- President Cyril Ramaphosa has formally opposed an application to overturn a court order temporarily halting Parliament's Section 89 impeachment inquiry into the Phala Phala saga.
- The application, brought by Parliament's Section 89 Impeachment Committee, EFF, ATM, MKP, and UAT, seeks to set aside a Western Cape High Court interim order preventing oral evidence pending a review application by Ramaphosa.
- Ramaphosa argues the application is legally flawed, lacks merit, and misinterprets the Constitutional Court's earlier judgment and the High Court's interim order.
- Ramaphosa contends there is no urgency for Constitutional Court intervention since the Western Cape High Court will hear the review from September 2 to 4, 2026.
- Despite oral hearings being suspended, Parliament's Section 89 Committee has recommended Adv Thandazani Madonsela SC as its preferred evidence leader, awaiting formal appointment.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has formally opposed an application seeking to overturn a court order that temporarily halted Parliament's Section 89 impeachment inquiry into the Phala Phala saga.
Court papers filed in the Constitutional Court on Wednesday show that Ramaphosa has lodged a notice of intention to oppose the application brought by Parliament's Section 89 Impeachment Committee, the EFF, African Transformation Movement (ATM), uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) and United Africans Transformation (UAT).
However, in his answering affidavit, Ramaphosa argues that the application is legally flawed, lacks merit and is based on an incorrect interpretation of both the Constitutional Court's earlier judgment and the High Court's interim order.
"
He argues that the High Court did not interfere with a Constitutional Court order but merely granted interim relief pending the determination of the review proceedings.
Ramaphosa also contends there is no urgency for the Constitutional Court to intervene because the review application is due to be heard by the Western Cape High Court from
"
"
He also questions whether some of the applicants are acting in the public interest, arguing that several are directly involved in the impeachment process and have already taken a political position against him.
"I do not accept that the applicants act in the public interest, and I do not accept that my political opponents on the Impeachment Committee approach the matter with detachment.
"Mr
Ramaphosa further argues that the applicants have failed to establish urgency, pointing out that the impeachment process has been under way for four years since ATM first tabled the motion seeking his removal from office.
"
