CAPE TOWN, Western Cape – President Cyril Ramaphosa has triggered a fresh legal battle by approaching the Western Cape High Court to stop the Phala Phala impeachment proceedings, a maneuver that has drawn sharp criticism from the African Transformation Movement (ATM).
The Head of State is seeking an urgent interdict to review and nullify the Section 89 Independent Panel Report. This panel previously concluded that there was prima facie evidence suggesting he breached the law and the constitution. In his filing, Ramaphosa argues that the parliamentary impeachment committee should be stayed pending the outcome of his judicial review. He has named the ATM among the respondents in this legal challenge.
According to the court documents, the President contends that the judiciary will only be able to hear his review application between September 2 and September 4. He argues that if the legislative committee commences impeachment hearings before the court delivers its ruling, he will suffer considerable prejudice. Furthermore, he asserts a constitutional right not to face an impeachment inquiry unless it is preceded by a valid report under rule 129D of the National Assembly rules, arguing that the substance of the report’s findings matters, not just its existence.
However, ATM Parliamentary Leader Vuyolwethu Zungula dismissed these concerns, expressing disappointment that the President is shirking accountability and oversight. Zungula reminded the public that during a recent press briefing, Ramaphosa had pledged to cooperate with the parliamentary process—a process mandated by the Constitutional Court. Highlighting paragraph 139 of the apex court’s order, Zungula noted that the matter must proceed to the impeachment committee unless the independent panel’s report is explicitly set aside by a court of law. Both the Speaker and the committee chairperson have already echoed this stance in their responses to the President’s initial letters.
Addressing the President’s claims of prejudice, the ATM leader invoked the Viking Pony judgment, which the Constitutional Court recently affirmed. This legal precedent establishes that a decision to investigate cannot be reviewed because an individual’s culpability has not yet been proven. Zungula explained that an inquiry does not infringe on a person’s rights; rather, it provides a formal platform for the accused to present their side, submit evidence, and rebut allegations. He urged Ramaphosa to embrace the committee as a legal, rather than political, avenue to definitively clear his name.
Confirming that his party will formally oppose the urgent interdict, Zungula stressed the critical need for transparency regarding the farm scandal. He emphasized that the President wields immense authority over the state and the lives of 62 million South Africans. Consequently, the public must be assured that their leader is free from guilt, criminal influence, or undue foreign influence—specifically referencing the allegations of undeclared US dollars hidden on his private game farm. Zungula warned that halting the probe would severely erode public trust in the executive and Parliament, whereas seeing it through would restore confidence in the nation’s institutions.
Pushing back against the argument that the independent panel’s report is flawed, Zungula pointed out that the findings were heavily based on evidence submitted by multiple parties. This included the President’s own affidavit and submissions from Ro, the head of the presidential protection unit. The ATM leader argued that Ramaphosa’s version of events was thoroughly considered and not ignored by the panel, rendering his current objections to the report’s validity baseless.
Ultimately, Zungula maintained that the impending hearings will actually safeguard the President’s legal rights. During the inquiry, Ramaphosa will be entitled to his own legal representation, including senior counsel, who will be fully empowered to cross-examine any testifying witnesses. The ATM leader concluded that the President should welcome this comprehensive scrutiny as a final opportunity to address every allegation so the country can move forward.