The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has approached the Constitutional Court in a bid to overturn a Western Cape High Court ruling that halted Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala farm burglary.
The party has filed an urgent application for direct leave to appeal the judgment that interdicted Parliament’s impeachment committee from probing the prima facie evidence of wrongdoing contained in the independent panel report that triggered the process.
In an affidavit submitted to the apex court, EFF leader Julius Malema said the party aligned itself with African Transformation Movement (ATM) and its leader in Parliament, Vuyo Zungula, who lodged a similar appeal application last week and are the first two applicants in the matter.
The EFF argues that the Western Cape High Court failed to properly consider established Constitutional Court precedent warning against courts interfering in the constitutional functions of other branches of government before legal challenges have been finally determined.
EFF calls for caution in granting of interim orders
Citing the Constitutional Court’s judgment in the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) matter, Malema said courts should exercise caution when granting interim orders that prevent Parliament or the executive from carrying out their constitutional duties.
The judgment states: “A court must also be alive to and carefully consider whether the temporary restraining order would unduly trespass upon the sole terrain of other branches of Government even before the final determination of the review grounds.”
It further cautions that: “A court must be astute not to stop dead the exercise of the executive or legislative power before the exercise has been successfully and finally impugned on review.”
According to the EFF, those principles were not adequately applied when the Western Cape High Court decided to suspend the impeachment process pending Ramaphosa’s review application.
Ramaphosa wants panel report set aside
The President is seeking to have the Section 89 independent panel report, chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, reviewed and set aside. The report found that there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated the Constitution and certain laws in relation to the 2020 burglary at his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo.
Last week he was successful in interdicting the impeachment committee for forging ahead with hearings.
Malema argues that the majority judgment failed to engage with a key issue raised in the minority judgment, namely whether Ramaphosa has any reasonable prospects of success in the review proceedings.
According to the affidavit, the minority judgment “extensively dealt with how the president has no prospects of success at the review court where he has set his sights on placing the Section 89 report under review”.
The EFF contends that this analysis was overlooked by the two judges who formed the majority.
At the heart of the party’s challenge is the question of whether Parliament should be prevented from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities while the President seeks to challenge the report that gave rise to those obligations.
Malema puts the issue directly before the Constitutional Court, asking whether Parliament should be prohibited from discharging its constitutional duty while the President challenges the lawfulness of the Ngcobo report.
“The majority of the Western Cape High Court, which decided the matter under appeal answered that question in the affirmative by staying ‘public impeachment hearings’ pending the president’s review of the Panel Report triggering his impeachment inquiry,” Malema states in his affidavit.
‘Impeachment process frozen’
“This froze an impeachment process that this court restored two months ago in EFF III.”
The EFF further argues that the High Court’s ruling runs contrary to the Constitutional Court’s own findings regarding Parliament’s obligations.
Malema points to a previous Constitutional Court judgment that reinstated the impeachment process and held that constitutional duties must be carried out “diligently and without delay”.
According to the EFF, allowing the impeachment process to remain suspended undermines that principle and delays Parliament from fulfilling a constitutional obligation that has already been affirmed by the country’s highest court.
The party also takes issue with the High Court’s treatment of potential reputational harm to the President.
In the affidavit, the EFF argues that the court elevated concerns about Ramaphosa’s reputation above the constitutional imperative of accountability.
The affidavit states that the court “conflated public accountability with irreparable reputational harm, against binding precedent in the same court and this court”.
It further argues that “the binding precedent subordinates private reputational concerns to the overriding imperative of public accountability”.
The Constitutional Court is now expected to decide whether to grant leave to appeal and, if successful, whether Parliament’s impeachment committee can resume its inquiry into the Phala Phala matter while Ramaphosa’s review challenge remains before the courts.
Meanwhile, the committee continues its preparatory work, with the committee expected to elect an evidence leader at their sitting on Wednesday.
- The EFF has filed an urgent appeal with the Constitutional Court to overturn a Western Cape High Court ruling that suspended Parliament's impeachment inquiry into President Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala farm burglary.
- EFF leader Julius Malema argues that the High Court failed to respect Constitutional Court precedent advising caution in interfering with Parliament's constitutional role before final legal determinations.
- The Western Cape High Court halted the impeachment process pending Ramaphosa's review application to set aside the Section 89 panel report accusing him of constitutional violations.
- The EFF contends that suspending the impeachment process delays Parliament's constitutional duties and wrongly prioritizes the President’s reputational harm over public accountability.
- The Constitutional Court will decide whether to allow Parliament’s impeachment inquiry to proceed while Ramaphosa’s legal challenge is ongoing, with the committee continuing preparatory work.
In an affidavit submitted to the apex court, EFF leader Julius Malema said the party aligned itself with African Transformation Movement (ATM) and its leader in Parliament, Vuyo
It further cautions that: "A court must be astute not to stop dead the exercise of the executive or legislative power before the exercise has been successfully and finally impugned on review."
Last week he was successful in interdicting the impeachment committee for forging ahead with hearings.
Malema argues that the majority judgment failed to engage with a key issue raised in the minority judgment, namely whether Ramaphosa has any reasonable prospects of success in the review proceedings.
At the heart of the party's challenge is the question of whether Parliament should be prevented from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities while the President seeks to challenge the report that gave rise to those obligations.
Malema puts the issue directly before the Constitutional Court, asking whether Parliament should be prohibited from discharging its constitutional duty while the President challenges the lawfulness of the
"
"
Malema points to a previous Constitutional Court judgment that reinstated the impeachment process and held that constitutional duties must be carried out "diligently and without delay".
In the affidavit, the EFF argues that the court elevated concerns about Ramaphosa's reputation above the constitutional imperative of accountability.
It further argues that "the binding precedent subordinates private reputational concerns to the overriding imperative of public accountability".
Meanwhile, the committee continues its preparatory work, with the committee expected to elect an evidence leader at their sitting on Wednesday.
