African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyolwethu Zungula has accused President Cyril Ramaphosa of seeking special treatment that would place future presidents beyond the reach of Parliament’s impeachment processes.
In court papers opposing Ramaphosa’s urgent bid to halt Parliament’s impeachment committee, Zungula argues that there is nothing unique about the president’s complaints and warns that granting the relief would create a precedent allowing any future head of state to stop impeachment proceedings whenever allegations are brought against them.
“Every president (or other office bearer) will perceive an impeachment process to be an affront to their dignity and reputation,” Zungula says in his answering affidavit.
Ramaphosa’s concerns ‘not exceptional’
He argues that the concerns raised by Ramaphosa are not exceptional but are the same concerns that would arise in virtually every impeachment process.
“If the president is entitled to an interdict, then every president who is subjected to an impeachment committee would be entitled to an interdict for the same reasons,” he states.
The ATM leader says Parliament’s impeachment process was created precisely because the Constitution recognises that presidents may have to answer allegations of serious misconduct, violations of the Constitution or breaches of the law.
‘Parly’s oversight role at stake’
According to Zungula, allowing personal concerns about reputation, dignity or the demands of appearing before an impeachment committee to halt the process would undermine Parliament’s constitutional oversight role.
He argues that Ramaphosa is asking a court to stop elected representatives from carrying out a constitutional function assigned to them by Parliament and the Constitution.
“He seeks an interdict against the elected representatives of the South African people fulfilling a constitutional function,” the affidavit says.
Zungula contends that there is no basis for treating Ramaphosa differently from any future president who may one day face impeachment proceedings.
He says every president would argue that the process damages their reputation, distracts them from governing and places them under public scrutiny. Yet, he argues, those consequences are inherent in an accountability mechanism deliberately created by the Constitution.
‘President entitled to fair hearing’
The ATM leader further argues that the impeachment committee has not reached any findings against Ramaphosa and that the president will still have an opportunity to answer allegations before lawmakers.
“The president faces no grave injustice and no real or permanent harm because he is entitled to a fair and reasonable hearing before the committee,” the affidavit states.
Zungula says the committee process remains an investigative and accountability mechanism rather than a finding of guilt.
He argues that Parliament’s constitutional responsibility cannot be suspended merely because a president disagrees with the process or wishes to challenge an earlier stage of the proceedings.
The affidavit also warns against allowing litigants to interrupt parliamentary processes before they have run their course.
‘A device open to abuse’
According to Zungula, the president is attempting to challenge a preliminary step in a broader constitutional process and is seeking relief that could weaken Parliament’s ability to hold future presidents accountable.
“The Committee must not cease impeachment because of a pending review of the Panel’s report. It is a device open to abuse because it seeks to stymie Parliament’s accountability functions,” he says.
Zungula maintains that the broader implications of the case extend beyond Ramaphosa and could shape how future presidents respond when Parliament seeks to investigate allegations against them.
For that reason, he argues that the court should be cautious about granting relief that would effectively create a pathway for future heads of state to delay or suspend impeachment proceedings through litigation.
The ATM leader says the president has failed to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to justify judicial intervention in Parliament’s constitutional duties and insists that the impeachment committee should be allowed to proceed with its work.
- African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyolwethu Zungula has accused President Cyril Ramaphosa of seeking special treatment that would place future presidents beyond the reach of Parliament’s impeachment processes.
- In court papers opposing Ramaphosa’s urgent bid to halt Parliament’s impeachment committee, Zungula argues that there is nothing unique about the president’s complaints and warns that granting the relief would create a precedent allowing any future head of state to stop impeachment proceedings whenever allegations are brought against them.
- “Every president (or other office bearer) will perceive an impeachment process to be an affront to their dignity and reputation,” Zungula says in his answering affidavit.
- Ramaphosa’s concerns ‘not exceptional’ He argues that the concerns raised by Ramaphosa are not exceptional but are the same concerns that would arise in virtually every impeachment process.
- “If the president is entitled to an interdict, then every president who is subjected to an impeachment committee would be entitled to an interdict for the same reasons,” he states.
