Parliament’s impeachment committee has resolved to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application to halt its work while he challenges the report that found he has a case to answer regarding the Phala Phala saga.
The committee will join the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and African Transformation Movement (ATM), which have already indicated they will oppose Ramaphosa’s application. The committee will also lobby Speaker Thoko Didiza to oppose the interdict.
The interdict case will essentially determine whether Ramaphosa can delay his impeachment hearing, possibly for years if appeals are considered, and avoid tough and potentially embarrassing and damaging questions regarding his response to the theft of at least $580,000 from his Phala Phala farm in 2020.
‘Irreparable damage’
On 12 June, Ramaphosa filed his urgent application in the Western Cape High Court seeking an interdict to stop the impeachment committee from conducting any work until his review application of Parliament’s Section 89 panel’s findings is finalised.
In November 2022, the panel found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated the Constitution and committed serious misconduct, saying there was a deliberate intention not to investigate the theft openly.
The ANC used its majority in Parliament at the time to ensure the Section 89 panel report didn’t lead to an impeachment hearing, but in May 2026, the Constitutional Court ruled that the National Assembly’s December 2022 vote was irrational, unconstitutional and invalid. It also struck down Rule 129I that let MPs override the panel’s recommendations.
The President has now taken the Section 89 panel report on legal review, arguing that it misunderstood its mandate by failing to properly consider the evidence against him.
While the review application is due to be heard in September, Ramaphosa’s interdict application argues that allowing the inquiry process to proceed while the Section 89 report’s legal validity is still disputed could cause “ irreparable” political and reputational harm . He also argued that he has the right not to face impeachment unless it’s preceded by a lawful and valid independent report.
Independent opinion
In a meeting of the impeachment committee on Thursday, 18 June 2026, the majority of the 31-member panel favoured opposing Ramaphosa’s interdict application.
The committee sought an independent legal opinion from advocate William Mokhare SC, who laid out its options, but recommended opposing the President.
Mokhare advised the committee to either oppose the application or to file an explanatory affidavit setting out the significant matters the committee wished to bring to the court’s attention, without opposing it outright.
Mokhare cautioned that the impeachment committee was appointed to be impartial and fair, arguing that since it hadn’t yet tested the Section 89 panel’s findings, it should avoid expressing a view on the merits or demerits of the underlying case. It can, however, assert what the Constitutional Court has directed it to do — proceed with the impeachment hearing.
While Ramaphosa claimed he would suffer “irreparable harm” if the committee proceeds while his review application is under way, Mokhare said all the evidence before the committee would be scrutinised and the President would have an opportunity to put his case forward.
Chairperson Makashule Gana, from Rise Mzansi, asserted that the impeachment committee would focus on what was within its control and continue “until a court of law tells us otherwise”. It will, therefore, meet as planned on 24 June to draft its terms of reference and elect leadership.
Impeachment committee chairperson Makashule Gana, from Rise Mzansi. (Photo: Jeffrey Abrahams / Gallo Images) Public accountability
The EFF was among the strongest advocates of opposing Ramaphosa’s interdict application.
“The emphasis of the Constitutional Court was very clear: that this must proceed, and there should not be any kind of disturbance to its process,” said party leader Julius Malema.
He framed it as a matter of public accountability, arguing that voters were entitled to transparency about the events on Ramaphosa’s farm. Malema also argued that the high court had no jurisdiction over the matter arising from the Constitutional Court.
“That is the very point we have flagged,” said Mokhare in response.
He raised concerns over whether the high court had the jurisdiction and power to grant the order when the impeachment committee was essentially established through a Constitutional Court order.
“It has to be debated. It’s not absolute, but it is a point you cannot ignore.”
A similar position was adopted by the ATM, DA, Bosa, ActionSA, ACDP, UDM, UAT, and FF Plus, all of which supported opposing the application.
Their arguments centred on defending Parliament’s authority, protecting the separation of powers, and ensuring that a pending court challenge does not automatically suspend parliamentary oversight processes…
Read the full article at Daily Maverick →
ZA