Ramaphosa's lawyers challenge legal test

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s request to halt the impeachment process over the Phala Phala farm scandal has drawn sharp criticism from the opposition, including the MK Party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), and the African Transformation Movement (ATM). These parties argue that the Constitutional Court has already mandated Parliament to proceed with its inquiry, and that the judiciary should not interfere with the legislative body’s constitutional role. The Western Cape High Court heard Ramaphosa’s urgent application this week, seeking to prevent the impeachment committee from continuing its work while he challenges the independent panel report that led to the formation of the committee. The committee was created following a May ruling by the Constitutional Court, which found that Parliament had failed to adequately address the panel’s findings regarding the Phala Phala scandal. The court ordered the National Assembly to establish a Section 89 committee to assess whether there are grounds for impeachment against the president. Opposition leaders have made clear their stance during the proceedings. Dr John Hlophe, deputy president of the MK Party, stated that Ramaphosa’s application represents an effort to obstruct a process already sanctioned by the Constitutional Court. “You cannot interdict an inquiry which has already been directed by the apex court,” Hlophe said. He accused National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza of complying with the President’s request without challenging it, suggesting that Didiza should have stood firm in defending Parliament’s mandate. The MK Party has taken further action by filing a Rule 167 motion demanding that Didiza appear before the impeachment committee to account for her decision to follow the President’s application. Hlophe emphasized that Parliament’s duty is to ensure the executive remains accountable, adding that the ANC’s leadership has enabled the executive to evade scrutiny. Similarly, the EFF has rejected the President’s move, calling it a deliberate attempt to stall the process. EFF Treasurer General Omphile Maotwe described the application as a “delaying tactic” and claimed that Ramaphosa knows the legal arguments lack merit. She stressed that the impeachment committee must continue its work, hearing witnesses and examining the evidence from the panel report. “The panel report is a report of Parliament and it has now led to the impeachment committee being established; he can’t stop the process,” Maotwe said. Vuyo Zungula, parliamentary leader of the ATM, echoed these sentiments, stating that the impeachment committee’s task is to evaluate whether there is a case for impeachment, not to judge the President’s guilt. He argued that Ramaphosa should be given the opportunity to respond to the allegations before the committee, rather than attempting to block the process through the courts. Zungula also warned that a ruling in favor of the President could set a dangerous precedent, enabling future public officials to challenge ongoing investigations. Despite their political differences, the three opposition parties agree that the impeachment committee should be allowed to complete its work before the courts consider Ramaphosa’s broader challenge to the independent panel report. The outcome of the High Court’s ruling will play a crucial role in determining the trajectory of the impeachment process.