Court halts Ramaphosa impeachment hearings in split judgment
The Western Cape High Court has granted President Cyril Ramaphosa an interim interdict halting Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment proceedings, pending the outcome of his legal challenge against the Independent Panel report into the Phala Phala matter.
The judgment, delivered on Friday, followed two days of urgent legal arguments last week, where Ramaphosa sought to stop the impeachment process from proceeding.
In a split decision, the court issued three judgments, with the majority finding that the President had made out a case for interim relief. The ruling prevents Parliament's impeachment committee from continuing with public hearings until the court has determined the review application.
Delivering the judgment, Judge Andre le Grange said the court had carefully weighed the competing arguments under urgent circumstances, noting both the complexity and significance of the case.
"This matter was argued before us last week over a period of two days, and we reserved the judgment until today. This court has carefully considered the weighty arguments advanced by the parties in the limited time available, given the urgency of the matter."
He explained that the court was divided in its reasoning, but that the majority supported granting interim relief to the President.
"There are three judgments. The first judgment concludes, for reasons set out therein, that the president has not made out a case for an interim interdict and proposes that the application be dismissed. The second judgment concludes that the president has made out a case for an interim interdict for the reasons set out in that judgment, and proposes that an interdict of limited duration be granted. The third judgment concurs with the second judgment. The second judgment is the majority judgment."
Le Grange said the majority ruling meant that Parliament's impeachment process would be temporarily halted while the court considers the legality of the Independent Panel's findings.
"In the result, pending the determination by this court of the applicant's review, the first and second respondents are interdicted from proceeding with public impeachment hearings in terms of Rule 129M of the National Assembly rules."
He added that the court would defer a decision on legal costs.
"The cost of the application shall stand over for determination by the court which hears the review."
The case stems from the Independent Panel’s findings that Ramaphosa had a case to answer regarding the 2020 theft of foreign currency at his Phala Phala farm in Limpopo.
Ramaphosa's legal team, led by Advocate Wim Trengove SC, argued that the panel applied the incorrect legal test in reaching its conclusions. They contended that the panel relied on a "prima facie" standard rather than conducting a more rigorous, qualitative assessment of the available evidence.
Trengove told the court that the Constitutional Court framework governing impeachment does not prescribe how Parliament's impeachment committee should deal with the panel's findings after referral, arguing that the rules of the National Assembly should guide that process.
He further argued that the panel failed to properly weigh the reliability and significance of the evidence before it, describing the material as a "mixed bag" that required careful evaluation.
Opposing the application, Advocate Dali Mpofu SC argued that the impeachment process is constitutionally mandated and should be allowed to proceed without judicial interference.
Counsel for the ATM, Advocate Anton Katz SC, also opposed the application, warning that halting the process could set a precedent that would allow political actors to use the courts to delay accountability processes.
The court's ruling now pauses the parliamentary process, with Ramaphosa's review application expected to determine whether the Independent Panel's findings were lawful.
ALSO READ
