The parliamentary committee tasked with investigating whether President Cyril Ramaphosa should be impeached has resolved to fight back against his attempt to stop its work, setting the stage for a high-stakes courtroom battle between Parliament and the country’s highest office.
The Section 89 Impeachment Committee announced on Thursday that it will oppose Ramaphosa’s urgent application to interdict the inquiry. It has also requested National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza to join the legal challenge.
Drawing a constitutional line in the sand
The decision marks a dramatic escalation in Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm saga, with Members of Parliament (MPs) effectively drawing a constitutional line in the sand, and signalling that they will not voluntarily suspend a process ordered by the Constitutional Court (ConCourt).
The inquiry was revived after the Constitutional Court ruled in May that Parliament acted unlawfully when it used its African National Congress (ANC) majority in December 2022 to block an impeachment process. This arose from the independent panel’s findings on the Phala Phala scandal, ordering lawmakers to restart the Section 89 process from where it was halted.
“The committee exists because of an order of the Constitutional Court, which directed that the Independent Panel Report be referred to the Impeachment Committee for consideration in terms of the National Assembly Rules,” Parliament said in a statement.
“That order remains binding unless set aside or varied by a competent court.”
Legal advice
The committee, chaired by Rise Mzansi’s Magashule Gana, said it considered legal advice on Thursday before unanimously resolving to oppose the president’s application.
“The committee’s role is to explain its constitutional obligations and protect its institutional ability to perform its functions,” Parliament said.
Ramaphosa is seeking an urgent interdict in the Western Cape High Court to halt the impeachment inquiry while he pursues a review application challenging aspects of the process. His application is scheduled to be heard on 15 and 16 July.
‘Bound by the Constitutional Court’
However, committee members maintain that they remain bound by the Constitutional Court’s instructions unless another court directs otherwise.
“The courts will determine the legal implications of that distinction,” Parliament said, referring to the fact that the committee’s mandate originates from a Constitutional Court order while the president’s interdict application will be heard in the High Court.
Until then, the committee says it intends pressing ahead.
“Until a court grants an order directing otherwise, the committee remains bound by the Constitutional Court order and will continue to discharge its responsibilities diligently and without delay.”
Draft terms of reference
The committee also announced that it will meet on 24 June to consider its draft terms of reference and begin the process of appointing evidence leaders who will assist in driving the inquiry.
The move places the committee on a direct collision course with Ramaphosa, who is attempting to pause the process before it gathers momentum. It also raises the prospect of judges being asked to navigate a delicate constitutional question: whether a High Court should halt a parliamentary process that exists because of an order issued by the country’s highest court.
For now, the impeachment committee has made clear that it intends to stand its ground, transforming what began as a legal challenge by the president into a broader institutional contest over Parliament’s ability to carry out one of its most powerful oversight functions.
Read More:
No proven link of Phala Phala dollars to Cyril Ramaphosa
Firoz Cachalia: No executive interference in Phala Phala probe
- The parliamentary committee tasked with investigating whether President Cyril Ramaphosa should be impeached has resolved to fight back against his attempt to stop its work, setting the stage for a high-stakes courtroom battle between Parliament and the country’s highest office.
- The Section 89 Impeachment Committee announced on Thursday that it will oppose Ramaphosa’s urgent application to interdict the inquiry.
- It has also requested National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza to join the legal challenge.
- Drawing a constitutional line in the sand The decision marks a dramatic escalation in Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm saga, with Members of Parliament (MPs) effectively drawing a constitutional line in the sand, and signalling that they will not voluntarily suspend a process ordered by the Constitutional Court (ConCourt).
- The inquiry was revived after the Constitutional Court ruled in May that Parliament acted unlawfully when it used its African National Congress (ANC) majority in December 2022 to block an impeachment process.
"
"
"
Ramaphosa is seeking an urgent interdict in the Western Cape High Court to halt the impeachment inquiry while he pursues a review application challenging aspects of the process. His application is scheduled to be heard on 15 and 16 July.
However, committee members maintain that they remain bound by the Constitutional Court's instructions unless another court directs otherwise.
"
Until then, the committee says it intends pressing ahead.
"Until a court grants an order directing otherwise, the committee remains bound by the Constitutional Court order and will continue to discharge its responsibilities diligently and without delay."
For now, the impeachment committee has made clear that it intends to stand its ground, transforming what began as a legal challenge by the president into a broader institutional contest over Parliament's ability to carry out one of its most powerful oversight functions.
Read More:
No proven link of Phala Phala dollars to Cyril Ramaphosa
Firoz Cachalia: No executive interference in Phala Phala probe
