President Cyril Ramaphosa has launched an urgent legal bid to stop Parliament’s impeachment committee from moving ahead with preparations for an inquiry into the Phala Phala scandal.
The application, lodged in the Western Cape High Court on Friday, seeks to freeze the process while a separate review challenge brought by the president is still before the courts.
Ramaphosa wants the court to prevent Parliament from taking the next step in the impeachment process until his review application has been decided.
According to the notice of motion, the president is seeking an order that, “pending the determination by this court of the applicant’s review, the first and second respondents are interdicted from commencing an impeachment enquiry in terms of Rule 129M of the Rules of the National Assembly”.
The legal arguments behind Rule 129M challenge
The ATM’s Vuyo Zungula, his party, the EFF, and the chair of the impeachment committee, Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gane are cited as respondents.
Rule 129M of the Rules of the National Assembly of the South African Parliament governs the procedure for Section 89 impeachment enquiries. It directs the Impeachment Committee to conduct a full evidentiary inquiry to establish the veracity and seriousness of the charges against the president and to report its findings to the assembly.
In the court papers, he requests that “the forms and service provided for in the Rules of Court are dispensed with, and the matter is heard as an urgent application in terms of Rule 6(12) of the Rules of Court”.
How the Constitutional Court ruled on Phala Phala
The latest court battle follows a bruising defeat for Ramaphosa in the Constitutional Court last month. The EFF, backed by the ATM, successfully challenged Parliament’s 2022 decision to reject the findings of an independent panel that had examined allegations linked to the Phala Phala controversy.
In a landmark ruling, the Constitutional Court found that the National Assembly acted unlawfully when it blocked the impeachment process and ordered that the matter be reconsidered through the proper constitutional mechanism.
That judgment breathed new life into a process that many believed had been settled years ago and paved the way for Parliament to establish an impeachment committee in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution.
The National Assembly subsequently appointed a 31-member multi-party committee chaired by Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana. The committee’s mandate is to investigate whether there is evidence that the president committed a serious violation of the Constitution or the law, engaged in serious misconduct, or is unable to perform the functions of office.
Although the committee has not yet begun hearing evidence, it has started laying the groundwork for the inquiry. MPs are currently considering a set of rules that will regulate how the process unfolds, including procedures relating to witnesses, legal representation, evidence and the committee’s eventual findings.
Ramaphosa’s application seeks to stop the committee before those preparations progress further.
Ramaphosa is further seeking a costs order against any party that opposes the application. The filing asks that “any parties who oppose this application are ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs”.
Opposition parties reject Ramaphosa’s legal interdict
Meanwhile, the EFF has strongly criticised Ramaphosa’s latest legal move, saying it confirms its long-held view that the president is seeking to delay accountability through the courts rather than face Parliament.
“Rather than resign and allow Parliament to perform its constitutional responsibilities without interference, president Ramaphosa has elected to fight the impeachment process at every turn. This is entirely inconsistent with the values of accountability, openness and constitutional governance that he claims to uphold,” according to the statement.
In a statement issued on Friday evening, the red berets say they will oppose the urgent interdict application.
The party argues that the application is part of a broader pattern of litigation aimed at avoiding an impeachment inquiry triggered by the Section 89 independent panel report on Phala Phala.
It further argues that the court bid does not automatically halt parliamentary proceedings, stressing that the impeachment committee remains legally entitled to continue its preparatory work unless a court grants the interdict.
“Until a competent court grants the relief sought by President Ramaphosa, there is no legal impediment preventing Parliament from carrying out the Constitutional Court’s order. The work of the impeachment committee therefore continues uninterrupted, and Parliament remains constitutionally obliged to execute its mandate,” it reads.
Read more:
Firoz Cachalia: No executive interference in Phala Phala probe
Mathews Phosa: No proven link of Phala Phala dollars to Cyril Ramaphosa
- President Cyril Ramaphosa has filed an urgent legal application in the Western Cape High Court to halt Parliament’s impeachment committee from advancing preparations for an inquiry into the Phala Phala scandal.
- The application aims to pause the impeachment process until a separate judicial review brought by Ramaphosa is resolved, specifically challenging the use of Rule 129M governing the procedure for impeachment inquiries.
- This legal move follows a Constitutional Court ruling that found Parliament acted unlawfully in blocking the impeachment process, leading to the establishment of a 31-member impeachment committee to investigate the president.
- Opposition parties, particularly the EFF and ATM, have condemned Ramaphosa's court bid, accusing him of using the courts to delay accountability instead of cooperating with Parliament’s constitutional duties.
- Despite Ramaphosa seeking to stop the committee’s progress, the impeachment inquiry’s preparatory work continues, as no court interdict has yet halted parliamentary proceedings.
