The state is paying most of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal costs in his court bid to stop Parliament’s Phala Phala impeachment hearings, the Western Cape High Court heard on Thursday.
Ramaphosa’s counsel, Advocate Wim Trengove SC, made the disclosure after an opposing lawyer said the president was funding the case privately.
“The bulk of his costs are apparently paid by the state, and the president pays some of it,” Trengove said.
“I have no greater detail than that.”
‘Humiliation of an inquiry’
Ramaphosa wants an interim interdict, which is a temporary court order, stopping the impeachment committee from hearing evidence until his review of the independent panel report is decided in September.
Trengove said the inquiry would cause Ramaphosa “irreversible” reputational harm.
“He’s not merely a witness. He’s the accused number one. He’s the only accused before an impeachment committee,” he said.
Ramaphosa was asking for only a two or three-month delay, while the committee could continue preparing its case, Trengove argued.
He said forcing the president into hearings based on a report that may later be overturned would expose him to “the humiliation of an inquiry”.
Personal harm vs public interest
The bench questioned whether Ramaphosa’s personal harm should outweigh the public’s interest in finalising allegations that have remained unresolved for nearly four years.
Section 89 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to investigate and remove a president for serious misconduct or serious violations of the law.
“Waiting for a time when there could be a definitive statement as to whether the President has done something or has not done something is keeping the populace and electorate in abeyance,” the court said.
“If there is going to be humiliation and so on, that is just part of the job.”
Trengove replied that Ramaphosa was not responsible for the previous delays and should not be deprived of protection because others were impatient.
‘The people must triumph’
Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, representing the MK Party, said the panel found prima facie evidence against Ramaphosa. Prima facie means evidence that, at first sight, establishes a case requiring a full investigation. It is not a finding of guilt.
Mpofu quoted the panel’s finding that there was a “deliberate intention” not to investigate the alleged crimes at Phala Phala openly.
The panel found that Ramaphosa may have seriously violated the Constitution and the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act and committed misconduct inconsistent with his office.
Mpofu said the impeachment rules protected citizens as well as presidents.
“The intention of these rules and section 89 is also to protect the people against a delinquent public protector, president, judge or whatever it is,” he said.
“The people must triumph for obvious reasons.”
‘Adversaries bent on scoring political points’
Trengove said the rules existed because presidents operated among “aggressive adversaries forever bent on scoring political points and, if possible, destroying their opponent”.
He closed the case by rejecting Mpofu’s portrayal of Ramaphosa as avoiding accountability.
“The people must be protected against a corrupt person,” Trengove said.
“But the people must also be protected against impeachment proceedings humiliating a president for which there is no justification.”
“It’s no easy slogan to say the people want blood, and therefore there must be blood. That is not the law.”
The court said it hoped to deliver judgment by the end of next week.
ALSO READ: Does Ramaphosa want his word to outweigh evidence?
- The Western Cape High Court heard that most of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal costs in his bid to halt the Phala Phala impeachment hearings are being paid by the state, with Ramaphosa covering a portion privately.
- Ramaphosa is seeking a temporary court order to delay the hearings until his review of an independent panel report is concluded in September, citing potential “irreversible” reputational harm.
- The court questioned whether Ramaphosa’s personal harm should outweigh the public interest in resolving serious allegations that have been pending for nearly four years, emphasizing Parliament’s constitutional power to investigate a president.
- Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing the MK Party, argued there is prima facie evidence against Ramaphosa, suggesting serious constitutional and legal violations, and stressed that impeachment rules protect citizens and the public interest.
- Ramaphosa’s counsel countered that impeachment should not proceed on unclear grounds and warned against political exploitation of the process, stressing the need to protect the president from unjust humiliation. The court aims to deliver judgment by the end of next week.
Ramaphosa’s counsel, Advocate Wim
“
“I have no greater detail than that.”
Ramaphosa wants an interim interdict, which is a temporary court order, stopping the impeachment committee from hearing evidence until his review of the independent panel report is decided in
“He’s not merely a witness. He’s the accused number one. He’s the only accused before an impeachment committee,” he said.
Ramaphosa was asking for only a two or three-month delay, while the committee could continue preparing its case,
He said forcing the president into hearings based on a report that may later be overturned would expose him to “the humiliation of an inquiry”.
Section 89 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to investigate and remove a president for serious misconduct or serious violations of the law.
“
“If there is going to be humiliation and so on, that is just part of the job.”
Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, representing the MK Party, said the panel found prima facie evidence against Ramaphosa. Prima facie means evidence that, at first sight, establishes a case requiring a full investigation. It is not a finding of guilt.
Mpofu quoted the panel’s finding that there was a “deliberate intention” not to investigate the alleged crimes at Phala Phala openly.
Mpofu said the impeachment rules protected citizens as well as presidents.
“
intention of these rules and section 89 is also to protect the people against a delinquent public protector, president, judge or whatever it is,” he said. The
“
He closed the case by rejecting Mpofu’s portrayal of Ramaphosa as avoiding accountability.
“
“But the people must also be protected against impeachment proceedings humiliating a president for which there is no justification.”
“It’s no easy slogan to say the people want blood, and therefore there must be blood.
That is not the law.”
ALSO READ: Does Ramaphosa want his word to outweigh evidence?
