Ramaphosa will learn fate in court bid to halt impeachment proceedings next week
The Western Cape High Court heard detailed legal arguments in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent bid to halt Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment process.
The President's legal team challenged both the interpretation of constitutional rules and the evidentiary threshold applied by the independent panel in the Phala Phala matter.
The case stems from the independent panel’s findings that Ramaphosa has a case to answer regarding the 2020 theft of foreign currency at his Phala Phala farm.
On day two of proceedings, Advocate Wim Trengove SC, representing the President, told the court that the Constitutional Court order establishing the framework for impeachment does not prescribe what should happen after the independent panel’s report is referred to an impeachment committee.
“One has to read the Constitutional Court order in context; the important context is that the rule simply says that once the panel finds sufficient evidence, the matter must be referred to an impeachment committee. The order does no more than give effect to that rule — and it stops there.”
He stressed that the court order does not go further to direct how the committee should deal with the report.
“There is nothing in the Constitutional Court order to suggest anything about what should happen after referral to the committee. The court is silent on that, because the rules then take over and regulate what follows.”
Trengove added that interpretations suggesting otherwise were misplaced.
“It is not correct to submit that the Constitutional Court said anything about how the impeachment committee must deal with the report. Those are matters regulated by the National Assembly rules, not by the court order.”
A key issue before the court is whether the Section 89 Independent Panel applied the correct legal test when it found that there was sufficient evidence for Ramaphosa to face a possible impeachment inquiry.
Trengove argued that the panel erred by applying a “prima facie” standard instead of undertaking a more rigorous and qualitative assessment of the available material.
“What the panel ultimately asked itself is whether there is a prima facie case — and we submit that is not the correct test.”
“The rule requires more than that. It requires a qualitative assessment of all the information before the panel to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify referring the matter to an impeachment committee.”
He elaborated on the nature of the information considered by the panel.
“The panel sits with a large volume of material — a mixture of first-hand accounts, hearsay, newspaper reports and other sources. It is a mixed bag.”
“If one simply asks whether, if that material were true, it would point to misconduct, that would be an entirely inappropriate exercise. It would not involve weighing the significance or reliability of that material in any meaningful way.”
Instead, he argued, the panel was required to weigh all the information carefully.
“What is required is to take everything into account — the President’s explanation, the various sources of information — and then ask whether there is sufficient evidence, in a qualitative sense, to justify putting the President through an impeachment inquiry.”
Trengove emphasised that the President’s case is not that the panel would necessarily have reached a different conclusion if it had applied the correct test.
“The question before this court is not whether the panel’s conclusion was right or wrong, the question is whether they applied the correct legal standard. And we submit that they did not.”
He also drew an analogy with the National Prosecuting Authority’s prosecution policy to illustrate the difference between a prima facie case and a higher evidentiary threshold.
“Even in the context of criminal prosecutions, the test is not whether there is a prima facie case. The question is whether there is sufficient admissible evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction.”
“That standard exists to avoid unjustified prosecutions — and it illustrates that there is a meaningful distinction between merely identifying a prima facie case and assessing whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed.”
However, counsel for the respondents rejected these arguments, with Advocate Dali Mpofu SC contending that the impeachment process is constitutionally mandated and should not be halted.
“Once the panel has found that sufficient evidence exists, the process must follow its course.”
He warned that granting the President’s application would amount to undue judicial interference in Parliament’s constitutional functions.
“What the President seeks to do is to pre-empt and frustrate a process that the Constitution entrusts to Parliament.”
Counsel for the ATM Party, Advocate Anton Katz SC, also opposed the application, arguing that Ramaphosa had failed to establish grounds for urgent relief.
“There is no basis in law to stop Parliament from performing its constitutional duty,” Katz submitted.
He added that the President’s review of the panel report can proceed independently without halting the impeachment process.
“The review process and the parliamentary process can run in parallel. There is no justification for interdicting Parliament at this stage,” Katz said.
Katz further cautioned against the broader implications of granting the relief sought.
“If this court were to intervene now, it would set a troubling precedent where litigants can approach the courts to stall constitutional processes whenever they face political accountability,” he argued.
Judgement has been reserved and is expected to be handed down by next week.
ALSO READ
