Impeachment committee to oppose Ramaphosa’s urgent court interdict

NATIONAL NEWS - The National Assembly’s impeachment committee will oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent application for an interdict to prevent it from conducting hearings into the controversial Phala Phala game farm scandal.

The 31-member committee resolved to take action on Thursday, after MPs were advised to resist the urgent court bid.

On Friday, 12 June, Ramaphosa approached the Western Cape High Court, seeking an urgent interdict while he challenges the Section 89 independent panel’s report, seeking to prevent the start of an impeachment inquiry until his separate review challenge against the report has been finalised.

Ramaphosa decided to revive a judicial review of the Section 89 Independent Panel Report after the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) sent the report on the Phala Phala scandal back to parliament earlier this month, paving the way for an impeachment process against Ramaphosa to proceed.

Legal opinion

An urgent legal opinion requested by Parliament’s Impeachment Committee this week recommended that the panel oppose the court application.

The opinion stated that if the committee chooses not to oppose Ramaphosa’s application, it should still file an explanatory affidavit to assist the court in adjudicating the matter.

According to the opinion, the Impeachment Committee has a constitutional and legal obligation to comply with the Constitutional Court order that referred the report to the committee for consideration and possible implementation.

Oppose Ramaphosa

Advocate William Mokhare further advised the Impeachment Committee to oppose Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict seeking to halt its proceedings, stressing that the panel must act in accordance with its constitutional mandate.

“You have two options. The first is to oppose the present application. The second is to file an explanatory affidavit to assist the court. But the first option is the more appropriate, because you will be able to assert your duties and obligations arising from the Constitutional Court judgment.”

“Even if the committee chose not to oppose, the opinion insisted it must still participate, because each participation will enrich the court, especially on the legal issues that will arise.”

Independence

Mokhare concluded that opposing the interdict is not biased but a constitutional necessity.

He underscored the committee’s independence.

“You have not yet assessed the evidence or expressed a view on the merits. Your role is to gather evidence freely, without interference, and to assert the duties imposed by the apex court.”

Ramaphosa’s rights

On Ramaphosa’s rights, the opinion was emphatic.

“The president will have every opportunity to controvert evidence and present his own. His rights are not imperilled – a fair hearing will be given, and that alleviates any claim of irreparable harm.”

Mokhare stressed that the committee’s duty is rooted “purely on legal grounds, simply asserting what its duty has been as mandated by the Constitutional Court.”

Apex court

He warned that “only the apex court can stay its own order”.

“The High Court is in no position to do that,” underscoring that the impeachment process must proceed “without delay, expeditiously, to bring finality to this matter involving the president of the Republic.”

Review application

The high court has scheduled the review application to be heard between 2 and 4 September, with opposing parties required to file notices of motion by 7 July.

In his court papers, Ramaphosa maintained that urgent intervention is necessary.

He argued that without the interdict, the impeachment committee could begin its work before the courts had had an opportunity to rule on the validity of the panel’s findings.

ConCourt ruling

The legal developments follow a Constitutional Court (ConCourt) ruling in May, which found that Parliament had acted unlawfully when it blocked impeachment proceedings against Ramaphosa in December 2022.