Court Halts Ramaphosa Impeachment Hearings

The Western Cape High Court has granted President Cyril Ramaphosa an interim interdict halting parliament’s impeachment inquiry pending a review application challenging the legality of an independent panel report. The court's decision temporarily pauses public hearings but allows preparatory work to continue.

According to multiple reports, the full bench ordered that parliament’s section 89 impeachment committee may not proceed with public hearings until Ramaphosa’s review application has been decided. This ruling is a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over parliament’s implementation of section 89 of the Constitution, which governs the removal of a president from office.

The impeachment process was triggered after an independent panel found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have committed serious violations of the Constitution or the law. The inquiry stems from the Phala Phala saga, in which $538,000 (about R8.8m) was stolen from the president’s game farm in Limpopo in 2020.

Political parties have offered sharply different interpretations of the ruling. The ANC welcomed the judgment, saying it reaffirmed the constitutional right of every citizen to seek legal protection when they believed a public process was unlawful or procedurally unfair. The DA, however, said the judgment did not amount to an endorsement of Ramaphosa’s conduct or clear him of any wrongdoing linked to the Phala Phala scandal.

Ramaphosa has consistently denied wrongdoing and is challenging the panel’s report in court. Political analysts expect Ramaphosa to remain in power, even if the impeachment process does get off the ground and ultimately leads to a vote on whether he should be removed from office. The ANC holds about 40 percent of seats in the National Assembly, and it is not clear how all the ANC’s coalition partners would vote in the impeachment process.

Opposition party ATM has launched an urgent direct appeal to the Constitutional Court seeking to overturn last week’s Western Cape high court judgment halting public impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa. The court acceded to Ramaphosa’s application for a temporary stay of his impeachment pending the hearing of another application to set aside the findings of a damning independent panel report.

The ATM application, lodged on Saturday, asks the top court to hear the matter urgently during the week of August 10-14 and to grant leave for a direct appeal. MP Vuyo Zungula and the ATM also want the Constitutional Court to replace the high court’s order with one dismissing Ramaphosa’s application and ordering him to pay costs.

Parliament’s section 89 impeachment committee has voted to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court to challenge the Western Cape High Court’s interim interdict halting public hearings on President Cyril Ramaphosa’s impeachment inquiry. The decision came after lengthy debate in which most opposition parties argued the judgment undermines parliament’s constitutional oversight powers and risks creating a precedent that could allow future presidents and other public office-bearers to delay accountability through litigation.

The ANC, Freedom Front Plus (FF+) and the Patriotic Alliance opposed an appeal, arguing the interim order is temporary and that the committee should instead focus on preparatory work pending the review application in September. ACDP MP Steve Swart argued that the judgment was precedent-setting and should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. He warned that allowing the ruling to remain could delay impeachment proceedings for years through successive court applications and said the dissenting judgment demonstrates there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

United Africans Transformation (UAT) leader Wonderboy Mahlatsi agreed, saying parliament has a constitutional obligation to defend its independence. He told members that the UAT, ATM, EFF and the MK party have already lodged applications for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court and argued that the limits of judicial intervention in parliamentary processes has to be clarified.

MK party MP John Hlophe said the committee has already resolved to oppose Ramaphosa’s court application and there is no reason to abandon that position after losing in the high court. Bosa leader Mmusi Maimane said the judgment appears to place greater weight on protecting Ramaphosa’s reputation than on the public interest in establishing the truth behind the allegations against the president.

ATM leader Vuyo Zungula described the judgment as vague and said the principles underpinning the committee’s earlier decision to oppose Ramaphosa’s application have not changed. He argued that the judgment fails to define what constitutes a public impeachment hearing and warned that uncertainty over the scope of the order could effectively prevent parliament from exercising its constitutional oversight powers for years if further appeals follow.

EFF MP Omphile Maotwe argued that the Constitutional Court had intended that the independent panel report proceed through parliament’s impeachment process and warned that allowing successive review applications and interim interdicts could enable future presidents to frustrate accountability through litigation. DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach said she changed her position during the debate, saying there is value in obtaining certainty because the judgment is “somewhat ambiguous and vague” and could have lasting implications for parliament’s constitutional powers.

UDM leader Nqabayomzi Kwankwa also backed an appeal, saying the split judgment itself demonstrates there are reasonable prospects of success. He argued that though the order is interim, it has immediate constitutional consequences because it restrains parliament from exercising its constitutional powers while the review application is pending.

Kwankwa warned that allowing the judgment to stand without challenge could create a precedent affecting parliament’s ability to hold not only presidents but also heads of Chapter 9 institutions and other constitutional office-bearers to account. ANC MP Mika Mahlaule questioned parliament’s legal opinion, arguing that it does not clearly define the limits of preparatory work or explain what constitutes public hearings.

Despite those concerns, Mahlaule argued that the committee should not appeal because the interdict is temporary pending the determination of Ramaphosa’s review application. FF+ MP Wouter Wessels also opposed an appeal, arguing that the committee has little prospect of successfully overturning the interim order. He maintained that the court has suspended only public hearings and not the committee’s broader constitutional mandate, meaning members could continue with preparatory work while awaiting the September review hearing.

PA MP Marlon Daniels urged the committee not to appeal. He warned that courts will examine the substance rather than the terminology used by the committee and cautioned against attempting to characterise substantive work as merely preparatory. Before members voted on whether to appeal, senior parliamentary legal adviser Susanne Isaacs advised that though the high court has prohibited public impeachment hearings, it has not prevented the committee from continuing with preparatory work.

She said members can appoint evidence leaders, finalise terms of reference and undertake administrative preparations, but cannot hear witnesses or consider evidence while the interim interdict remains in force. Acting on that advice, the committee also voted 16-8, with one abstention, to reverse last week’s decision to invite the authors of the Independent Panel Report to brief MPs.

Instead, members resolved that the report be presented by the committee’s evidence leaders because it now forms part of the committee’s proceedings. The committee will now continue with preparatory work while seeking leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court. Public impeachment hearings remain suspended pending the outcome of Ramaphosa’s review application.