Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee has voted by the narrowest of margins to appeal the Western Cape High Court’s interim interdict that temporarily halts key aspects of its inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s alleged misconduct in the burglary of foreign currency at his Phala Phala farm.
The decision was taken on Wednesday after a robust debate that exposed deep divisions within the multi-party committee over whether Parliament should challenge the interim order or wait for the President’s review application to be heard in September.
In the end, 14 members voted in favour of appealing the interdict, while 13 voted against. There were no abstentions.
ANC MPs oppose appeal move
The proposal that the committee should not appeal the court order was first tabled by ANC MP Mika Mahlaule, who argued that Parliament should wait until the outcome of the review which President Cyril Ramaphosa has instituted against the report.
Mahlaule, was supported by supported by fellow ANC MP Xola Nqola, who questioned the financial implications of pursuing another court battle before the review application had been determined.
He also said it would be wasteful for the committee to continue with preparations only for Ramaphosa’s review to be successful.
ANC MP Cameron Dugmore also opposed an appeal, saying the President was entitled to challenge the independent panel report through judicial review.
“What we are seeing here is a fundamental unwillingness to accept the President’s right to take the panel report on review. That right is, in fact, clearly affirmed by the Constitutional Court judgment,” Dugmore said.
“So why should this committee involve itself in political disputes with other parties over the President’s decision to take this judgment on review?”
Dugmore urged the committee to abide by the court order and called for Parliamentary Legal Services to provide advice on the implications of either supporting or opposing an appeal before any decision was taken.
Legal advisor favours continuing with preparations
This debate was sparked by a legal opinion presented by Parliament’s senior legal advisor Suanne Isaac that the committee continue its preparatory work while awaiting the review application to be heard by the courts.
Freedom Front Plus MP Wouter Wessels argued that there was little practical value in appealing the interim order.
“There would be no sense to appeal the interdict now. We know practically speaking, we will not start, interdict or no interdict, with public hearings until October. It will be moot to appeal the interdict,” Wessels said.
MK Party leader in Parliament John Hlophe agreed that the committee should continue with preparations while awaiting the outcome of the review application.
“Let us carry on with our work. We are not likely in any event likely to have public hearings until October,” he said.
However, Hlophe argued that the committee should nevertheless appeal the High Court ruling, saying he believed the dissenting judgment was legally more persuasive than the majority judgment.
“There is a dissenting judgment, and my view is that the dissenting judgment is more legally persuasive. It is correct. The majority of the judges saw it differently,” Hlophe said.
“Once you decide to embark on litigation, it carries with it the risk that you may lose before the initial hearing. And a wise man or a woman would carry on and appeal.”
He reminded members that the committee had previously resolved to oppose Ramaphosa’s litigation.
“We were sober-minded when we decided that we should oppose the litigation. We did that, we opposed it. The court ruled against us. Logically, I would urge this committee to appeal against the ruling of the majority of the Western Cape High Court.”
Build One South Africa leader Mmusi Maimane also threw his weight behind an appeal, saying Parliament had a constitutional responsibility to defend its authority.
“I hear what Honourable Wessels is arguing, but I want to support what Honourable Schwartz conveyed, which is to say that if one arm of the state was able to interdict another, then I would argue that the people of South Africa then are subordinated to the argument of that arm of the state,” Maimane said.
‘Resolution will benefit both the president and the country’
He argued that resolving the matter as quickly as possible would benefit both the president and the country.
“So in the interest of being able to get through this matter as quickly and effectively as possible, I would ask… that we need to appeal this matter.”
Patriotic Alliance MP Marlon Daniels urged the committee not to challenge the court order, saying members should focus on ensuring that the process was legally sound rather than engaging in further litigation.
“My submissions here must not be seen as protecting an individual person. We are protecting the process and the record that has to survive a court,” Daniels said.
He argued there was no urgency because the review application would be heard within weeks.
Chairperson Gana opposes appeal move
Committee chairperson Makashule Gana also indicated that he was opposed to appealing the interim interdict.
“As the chairperson, because this question was asked previously, let me state what my view is. My view is that we should not pursue an appeal, but that if the Constitutional Court does make a determination, whatever the outcome may be, we will then proceed accordingly,” Gana said.
MPs further voted against the appearance of the section 89 panel members before the committee.
The vote was 16- 2 against, after Parliament’s legal advisors had concluded that the report was already adopted and is already part of the proceedings.
- Parliament's Section 89 Impeachment Committee narrowly voted 14-13 to appeal the Western Cape High Court's interim interdict halting key parts of its inquiry into President Ramaphosa's Phala Phala farm burglary case.
- The committee is divided, with ANC MPs opposing the appeal, arguing Parliament should wait for the President's review application outcome and citing cost and process concerns.
- Legal advisors and some MPs from other parties support continuing preparations while awaiting the review decision and favor appealing the court ruling to defend Parliamentary authority.
- Key opponents of the appeal emphasize respecting the President's right to judicial review and avoiding unnecessary litigation, advocating a focus on legal soundness of the process.
- Committee chairperson Makashule Gana opposes the appeal and calls for awaiting the Constitutional Court’s determination before proceeding further.
Parliament's Section 89 Impeachment Committee has voted by the narrowest of margins to appeal the Western Cape High Court's interim interdict that temporarily halts key aspects of its inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa's alleged misconduct in the burglary of foreign currency at his Phala Phala farm.
In the end, 14 members voted in favour of appealing the interdict, while 13 voted against.
He also said it would be wasteful for the committee to continue with preparations only for Ramaphosa's review to be successful.
ANC MP Cameron Dugmore also opposed an appeal, saying the President was entitled to challenge the independent panel report through judicial review.
"What we are seeing here is a fundamental unwillingness to accept the President's right to take the panel report on review.
"So why should this committee involve itself in political disputes with other parties over the President's decision to take this judgment on review?"
Dugmore urged the committee to abide by the court order and called for Parliamentary Legal Services to provide advice on the implications of either supporting or opposing an appeal before any decision was taken.
Freedom Front Plus MP Wouter Wessels argued that there was little practical value in appealing the interim order.
"
MK Party leader in Parliament John
"Let us carry on with our work. We are not likely in any event likely to have public hearings until October," he said.
However,
"
"Once you decide to embark on litigation, it carries with it the risk that you may lose before the initial hearing.
He reminded members that the committee had previously resolved to oppose Ramaphosa's litigation.
"We were sober-minded when we decided that we should oppose the litigation. We did that, we opposed it.
Build One
"I hear what Honourable Wessels is arguing, but I want to support what Honourable Schwartz conveyed, which is to say that if one arm of the state was able to interdict another, then I would argue that the people of
He argued that resolving the matter as quickly as possible would benefit both the president and the country.
"So in the interest of being able to get through this matter as quickly and effectively as possible, I would ask... that we need to appeal this matter."
Patriotic Alliance MP Marlon Daniels urged the committee not to challenge the court order, saying members should focus on ensuring that the process was legally sound rather than engaging in further litigation.
"My submissions here must not be seen as protecting an individual person. We are protecting the process and the record that has to survive a court," Daniels said.
He argued there was no urgency because the review application would be heard within weeks.
Committee chairperson
"As the chairperson, because this question was asked previously, let me state what my view is. My view is that we should not pursue an appeal, but that if the Constitutional Court does make a determination, whatever the outcome may be, we will then proceed accordingly," Gana said.
MPs further voted against the appearance of the section 89 panel members before the committee.
