The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) has been asked to urgently overturn a Western Cape High Court decision that halted public impeachment hearings against President Cyril Ramaphosa, with applicants arguing the ruling undermines constitutional accountability.
The application, brought by African Transformation Movement (ATM) parliamentary leader Vuyolwethu Zungula, seeks five orders from the apex court and requests the matter be heard during the week of August 10 to 14.
Decision ‘irredeemably vague’
According to Zungula’s founding affidavit, the majority’s 2-1 decision granting the president a temporary interdict is “irredeemably vague” and “constitutionally harmful”, setting a precedent allowing any president facing impeachment to escape public accountability.
On direct access, the applicants argue this is a compelling case for bypassing the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Zungula states direct access is warranted because “the matter is clearly of considerable constitutional importance” and “no other court will consider this”.
Zungula notes that the Part B review court “is not seized with an interdict” and “will only determine whether the president’s review has merit”.
Zungula further notes that the dissenting judgement warns, “left undisturbed, the president could rely on the judgement to interdict the next stage of the impeachment process. And any other president who faces impeachment would be entitled to an interdict too.”
Zungula emphasises that “the split decision will be the last word on the principles applicable to interim interdicts in impeachment matters”.
Crucial for apex court to intervene
According to the applicants, this makes it constitutionally imperative for the apex court to intervene now rather than allowing the matter to travel through the ordinary appellate hierarchy.
The applicants submit that the delay inherent in appealing to the Supreme Court of Appeal would perpetuate the legal uncertainty that has already paralysed parliament’s impeachment functions.
They further submit that direct access is appropriate because the matter involves the interpretation and application of constitutional provisions relating to parliamentary oversight and accountability.
Zungula states that only the Constitutional Court can provide the final and binding interpretation required to resolve the conflicting judgements within the Western Cape High Court itself.
Split decision creates legal uncertainty
According to the applicants, the split decision creates an intolerable state of legal uncertainty that cannot be allowed to persist while the matter proceeds through the ordinary appellate process.
Zungula notes the dissenting judgement acknowledges that the review court will not consider the interdict question, so the legal principles governing interim interdicts in impeachment matters will never reach the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The applicants argue this is precisely the kind of exceptional circumstance that warrants direct access under rule 19(2).
On appealability, Zungula emphasises this is a threshold question the Constitutional Court must determine immediately after considering direct access.
He states: “This court has recognised that an interim interdict is appealable where it is in the interests of justice. This principle is now well-established.”
Zungula warns that if the majority’s principles are correct, “it has profound implications for parliament’s accountability functions”.
According to Zungula, “[t]here is no certainty about which principles are correct because the judgments on those principles are contradictory. It is constitutionally necessary for this court to determine which principles are correct.”
Zungula notes the dissenting judgement also supports the position that the interdict is appealable, stating: “No other court will consider this.
The part B review court will certainly not do so. It is not seized with an interdict. It will only determine whether the president’s review has merit. The split decision will be the last word on the principles.”
The application claims that the majority failed to properly assess the president’s prospects of success, a requirement established in the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) v Gordhan case.
Zungula states the dissenting judgement applied this standard, holding: “A court cannot decline to look at the prospects of the review and at the same time grant relief which depends upon nothing else.”
The applicants argue the majority ignored two full-bench judgements that previously refused interim interdicts against impeachment processes.
Zungula states: “Two full benches, six judges, have rejected the arguments for an interdict against Parliament’s impeachment process that two judges have now embraced.”
Zungula raises whether the majority erred by granting relief the president never requested.
He notes the notice of motion sought to restrain commencement of an inquiry, but the committee was already constituted and working.
‘Cannot restrain the commencement of a process that has already commenced’
Zungula notes the dissenting judgment confirms, “One cannot restrain the commencement of a process that has already commenced.”
Zungula argues the majority’s order is unconstitutionally vague, leaving unanswered questions: Could the committee proceed if it closed proceedings to the public? Would written questions and answers be permissible if not made public?
He states: “The committee is now left to discern for itself what it may or may not do.”
Zungula notes the dissenting judgement concluded the president’s review prospects are “poor” and the panel’s interpretation of its mandate was correct.
According to Zungula’s answering affidavit, each of the president’s seven review grounds “is without merit”.
The applicants cite EFF v Speaker – the Nkandla judgement where the Constitutional Court held courts should not interfere in other branches of government unless authorised by the constitution.
Zungula states: “The majority does not identify where the constitution authorises it to do this. Had it considered the constitution, it would have realised that the constitution mandates the opposite of what it ordered, that the assembly conducts its business publicly.”
The applicants seek costs of the application and appeal, including costs of three counsels.
Zungula concludes there are “clearly strong prospects of success. This much is evident from the minority judgement.”
- The African Transformation Movement (ATM) has urgently asked the Constitutional Court to overturn a Western Cape High Court ruling that halted public impeachment hearings against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
- ATM parliamentary leader Vuyolwethu Zungula argues the ruling is vague, constitutionally harmful, and sets a dangerous precedent allowing presidents to avoid public accountability.
- The applicants request direct access to the Constitutional Court, bypassing the Supreme Court of Appeal, citing the matter's urgent constitutional importance and need for final interpretation.
- The application highlights a split Western Cape High Court decision creating legal uncertainty about interim interdicts in impeachment processes, which risks paralyzing Parliament's accountability functions.
- The applicants criticize the majority judgment for not properly assessing the president’s prospects of success and for issuing vague orders that hinder the impeachment inquiry’s progress.
On direct access, the applicants argue this is a compelling case for bypassing the Supreme Court of Appeal.
On appealability,
He states: "
He notes the notice of motion sought to restrain commencement of an inquiry, but the committee was already constituted and working.
He states: "
