President Cyril Ramaphosa has won an urgent legal bid to temporarily halt Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment inquiry after the Western Cape High Court granted an interim interdict suspending the proceedings pending the outcome of his review application against the Section 89 Independent Panel report.
The split judgment, delivered by a full bench of the Western Cape High Court on Friday, means Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee may not proceed with its public hearings while the court considers Ramaphosa’s application to review and set aside the independent panel’s findings arising from the Phala Phala matter.
The ruling does not determine whether Ramaphosa committed any misconduct or whether he should ultimately face impeachment. Instead, it deals only with whether Parliament’s impeachment inquiry should continue before the legality of the independent panel’s report has been decided.
The full bench heard arguments over two days last week before delivering judgment on Friday.
Handing down the order, Judge Andre Le Grange confirmed that the court had not reached a unanimous decision.
“The court deliberated over a matter involving the President’s application for an interim interdict over a two day period. Three judgments were issued: one dismissed the President’s case, another granted a limited duration interdict, and the majority concurred,” Le Grange said.
He said the majority ordered that the first and second respondents be interdicted from conducting public impeachment hearings under Rule 129 of the National Assembly Rules until the review application has been determined.
“The costs of the application will be determined by the reviewing court. The judgment will be made available shortly,” Le Grange said before adjourning the proceedings.
Although divided on the outcome, the majority of the court found that an interim interdict was appropriate to preserve the status quo until the review application has been heard. The judges stressed that they were not deciding the merits of the allegations against the President or whether he should ultimately face impeachment, but only whether Parliament’s inquiry should proceed before the legality of the Section 89 Independent Panel report is determined.
The Section 89 process stems from the Constitutional Court’s judgment in May, which found that the National Assembly acted inconsistently with the Constitution when it voted in 2022 not to adopt the recommendations of the independent panel established to consider the Phala Phala matter. The apex court ordered Parliament to process the report in accordance with its Section 89 rules.
The independent panel had concluded there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have committed serious violations of the Constitution and the law in relation to the theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in 2020. The President has consistently denied wrongdoing and has challenged the panel’s findings.
Following the Constitutional Court ruling, Ramaphosa launched two applications in the Western Cape High Court. The first seeks to review and set aside the independent panel’s report, while the second sought urgent interim relief preventing Parliament’s Impeachment Committee from proceeding with public hearings until the review application is finalised.
In a statement issued after Friday’s ruling, the Presidency said Ramaphosa noted the Western Cape High Court’s decision granting his urgent application to temporarily interdict the Section 89 impeachment proceedings.
The Presidency said the President had approached the court to pause the impeachment process until the court finalises his separate review application concerning the independent panel’s report on the Phala Phala incident.
“The President respects the ruling handed down today,” Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said.
The Presidency added that Ramaphosa reaffirmed his respect for judicial independence and the constitutional principle of separation of powers, saying he would continue to cooperate with and abide by constitutional processes of accountability.
The judgment drew mixed reactions from political parties.
Rise Mzansi spokesperson Mabine Seabe said the ruling would test the strength of South Africa’s constitutional mechanisms. Seabe said Ramaphosa remained bound by the Constitution and that all political parties should respect the outcome of the court process.
The Economic Freedom Fighters said it was not surprised by the judgment. Party spokesperson Noluthando Nolutshungu said the EFF would study the full judgment before deciding on its next legal and political steps.
The African Transformation Movement, which initiated the original Section 89 complaint against Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala matter, criticised the ruling.
ATM parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula said the Western Cape High Court had contradicted itself by granting the President an interim interdict stopping Parliament’s impeachment inquiry.
Zungula compared the matter with the impeachment proceedings against former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, arguing that legal challenges in that matter did not prevent Parliament from continuing with its inquiry.
“The Western Cape High Court has contradicted itself in granting President Cyril Ramaphosa the interdict,” Zungula said, adding that the party would study the judgment before deciding on its next course of action.
The Democratic Alliance, however, maintained that the judgment does not completely halt the work of Parliament’s impeachment committee.
DA MP and member of the Section 89 Impeachment Committee Glynnis Breytenbach said the court’s order does not prevent the committee from continuing with administrative and preparatory processes while the review application is pending.
According to Breytenbach, the committee can continue appointing evidence leaders, preparing documentation and carrying out other procedural work in preparation for the inquiry. She said only the public hearings have been temporarily halted by the interim interdict.
The uMkhonto weSizwe Party also reacted to the ruling.
MK Party MP David Skosana said he was not surprised by the Western Cape High Court’s decision in favour of Ramaphosa. Skosana said the court’s order had effectively halted the Section 89 impeachment proceedings pending the outcome of the President’s review application.
Before Friday’s judgment, Parliament’s Impeachment Committee had resolved to oppose Ramaphosa’s urgent application, arguing that it was constitutionally obliged to continue with the inquiry following the Constitutional Court’s order unless restrained by a court.
Friday’s order means the committee’s public hearings are suspended until the Western Cape High Court has determined the President’s review application. However, the committee may continue with administrative preparations in the interim, depending on its interpretation of the order.
The interdict is temporary and does not determine whether Ramaphosa should ultimately face impeachment. That question will only be considered once the High Court has ruled on the President’s application to review and set aside the Section 89 Independent Panel report, after which Parliament’s impeachment process will proceed in accordance with the outcome of that review.
