Parliament’s impeachment committee chairperson Makashule Gana has asked the Constitutional Court to urgently overturn a Western Cape High Court ruling that brought the impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa to a standstill, arguing that the decision has hampered Parliament’s ability to hold the head of state accountable.
In papers filed before the apex court, Gana says the high court’s order has prevented the committee from carrying out the task assigned to it under Section 89 of the Constitution. He argues that the judgment has wider constitutional implications because it allows the judiciary to interrupt Parliament while it is exercising one of its oversight functions.
Gana joins bid to challenge high court ruling
Gana joined an application already lodged by Vuyolwethu Zungula, the African Transformation Movement, the Economic Freedom Fighters, the Umkhonto weSizwe Party and United Africans Transformation after the committee resolved on July 29 to challenge the judgment in the Constitutional Court.
The dispute stems from the high court’s decision to suspend the impeachment inquiry pending the outcome of Ramaphosa’s application to review the findings of the independent Section 89 panel that found there was sufficient evidence for Parliament to investigate whether the president had committed serious violations of the Constitution.
Gana argues that allowing the interdict to remain in place would undermine Parliament’s constitutional role and create uncertainty over its powers.
“The Committee’s view is that once it is constituted, it is obliged to do its work to conclusion with submission of its report to the National Assembly (NA) for voting by members of the NA. It is thus inappropriate for a Court to halt such constitutionally endowed process which seeks to hold the President accountable,” he says.
‘Order is far reaching’
According to Gana, the urgency of the matter extends beyond Ramaphosa’s case because the judgment affects the relationship between the judiciary and Parliament. He says the order is “far reaching and damaging to the separation of powers doctrine and accountability by public representatives especially the President” and argues that “such uncertainty should not be permitted to linger”.
The application asks the ConCourt to decide whether the High Court was correct to stop an impeachment inquiry before it had even begun hearing evidence.
Gana argues that the full bench applied the wrong legal test when it granted the interim interdict. He says the majority declined to determine whether Ramaphosa’s interpretation of Parliament’s rules was correct and instead accepted that the president had merely raised “a serious question to be tried”, while “expressly” declining “to assess the prospects of the review”.
He says that approach departed from established ConCourt authority governing applications to halt the exercise of public power pending judicial review.
‘Panel’s function a preliminary sifting exercise’
The affidavit also criticises the majority for refusing to interpret the National Assembly Rules that regulate impeachment proceedings. Gana argues that the independent panel’s function is limited to conducting an initial assessment, while the impeachment committee has the responsibility of testing the evidence and determining whether the allegations are substantiated.
“The function of the Panel is a preliminary sifting exercise; it is the committee that is mandated by Rule 129M to establish the veracity and, where required, the seriousness of the charges,” Gana says.
He contends that accepting Ramaphosa’s interpretation of the rules would effectively strip the committee of the role Parliament intended it to perform.
Gana also disputes the high court’s finding that allowing the inquiry to continue would cause Ramaphosa irreparable harm. He says the impeachment process itself contains procedural safeguards designed to protect the president’s rights.
“The process is protective at every stage: the committee is bound to be independent and impartial and to observe natural justice; the President is entitled to be heard, to test and dispute the evidence and to be legally represented,” he says.
He adds that “being required to answer in a constitutionally mandated enquiry cannot, as a matter of principle, constitute irreparable harm; the enquiry is the very forum in which the president may vindicate himself”.
Responding to concerns that the inquiry could be used as a political platform against the president, Gana says he had already assured the High Court that the committee would conduct its work fairly.
“My evidence in the high court, which was not contradicted, was that I would enforce the rules to ensure a fair process and to prevent gratuitous or unwarranted attacks,” he says.
High court exceeded its powers
The committee chair further argues that the high court exceeded its powers by effectively suspending the operation of an earlier Constitutional Court order that referred the independent panel’s report to Parliament for an impeachment inquiry.
“The effect of the majority judgment was to suspend the operation of that order,” Gana says, adding that only the Constitutional Court has the authority to suspend or vary its own orders.
Gana maintains that the Constitutional Court should hear the matter urgently because it raises important constitutional questions about the limits of judicial intervention in parliamentary processes. He argues that a final ruling is needed to clarify Parliament’s oversight powers and determine whether courts may halt an impeachment inquiry before legislators have had an opportunity to perform the work assigned to them by the Constitution.
- Parliament’s impeachment committee chairperson, Makashule Gana, has asked the Constitutional Court to urgently overturn a Western Cape High Court ruling that suspended the impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa.
- Gana argues the high court ruling hampers Parliament’s constitutional role to hold the president accountable and disrupts the separation of powers by allowing judicial interference in parliamentary oversight functions.
- The committee challenges the high court’s suspension of the inquiry pending Ramaphosa’s review application of the Section 89 panel’s findings, contending the court applied the wrong legal test in granting the interdict.
- Gana emphasizes that the independent panel only conducts a preliminary assessment, while the committee is tasked with fully testing evidence and conducting the impeachment inquiry fairly.
- He contends the high court exceeded its powers by suspending the inquiry and calls for clarity on judicial limits in parliamentary oversight through an urgent Constitutional Court ruling.
Parliament's impeachment committee chairperson
In papers filed before the apex court, Gana says the high court's order has prevented the committee from carrying out the task assigned to it under Section 89 of the Constitution. He argues that the judgment has wider constitutional implications because it allows the judiciary to interrupt Parliament while it is exercising one of its oversight functions.
Gana joined an application already lodged by
Gana argues that allowing the interdict to remain in place would undermine Parliament's constitutional role and create uncertainty over its powers.
"
Gana argues that the full bench applied the wrong legal test when it granted the interim interdict. He says the majority declined to determine whether Ramaphosa's interpretation of Parliament's rules was correct and instead accepted that the president had merely raised "a serious question to be tried", while "expressly" declining "to assess the prospects of the review".
He says that approach departed from established ConCourt authority governing applications to halt the exercise of public power pending judicial review.
"
He contends that accepting Ramaphosa's interpretation of the rules would effectively strip the committee of the role Parliament intended it to perform.
Gana also disputes the high court's finding that allowing the inquiry to continue would cause Ramaphosa irreparable harm. He says the impeachment process itself contains procedural safeguards designed to protect the president's rights.
"
He adds that "being required to answer in a constitutionally mandated enquiry cannot, as a matter of principle, constitute irreparable harm; the enquiry is the very forum in which the president may vindicate himself".
"My evidence in the high court, which was not contradicted, was that I would enforce the rules to ensure a fair process and to prevent gratuitous or unwarranted attacks," he says.
"
Gana maintains that the Constitutional Court should hear the matter urgently because it raises important constitutional questions about the limits of judicial intervention in parliamentary processes. He argues that a final ruling is needed to clarify Parliament's oversight powers and determine whether courts may halt an impeachment inquiry before legislators have had an opportunity to perform the work assigned to them by the Constitution.
