CAPE TOWN — The legal clash over the Cyril Ramaphosa interdict application has escalated, with the Phala Phala impeachment committee confirming it will challenge the president’s urgent bid to halt proceedings in the High Court.
President Cyril Ramaphosa initiated the urgent interdict in the Western Cape division of the High Court last week. His legal strategy aims to pause the ongoing impeachment process until a separate review of the Section 89 Independent Panel Report is finalized. That specific report previously concluded there was a prima facie case for him to answer regarding the Phala Phala matter.
In a decisive move, the parliamentary committee—which was mandated by last month’s Constitutional Court ruling to investigate the president—has resolved to formally oppose the interdict. This opposition will proceed if National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza does not file it herself. Furthermore, the committee plans to invite Speaker Didiza to join their legal opposition.
The legal maneuver has sparked a debate over judicial authority. An independent legal advisor recently argued that the Western Cape High Court lacks the jurisdiction to evaluate or override a ruling from the Constitutional Court.
However, constitutional law experts offer a different perspective on the matter. Advocate Lufuno Nevondwe, a constitutional law expert at the University of Limpopo, stated that the president’s legal strategy was entirely predictable.
“We were not surprised; in fact, the president was supposed to have launched it together with his review application,” Nevondwe noted, adding that Parliament also anticipated the move since the president had previously reached out to request a pause in the proceedings.
According to Nevondwe, the president’s primary argument for the interdict is that he will suffer irreparable harm and damage to his dignity if the impeachment continues. The review application is scheduled to be heard in September 2026. The president’s camp argues that if Parliament pushes forward and he ultimately succeeds in having the independent panel’s report set aside, the legislature will have wasted significant time and resources based on an invalidated report.
Conversely, Parliament is focused on defending its constitutional mandate to ensure executive accountability and to execute the Constitutional Court’s directive. The apex court’s judgment explicitly stated that the impeachment process can only be stopped if another court sets aside the Section 89 report. Since no such ruling exists yet, the directive remains active.
Delving into the Constitutional Court judgment, Nevondwe referenced paragraph 139, where the Chief Justice emphasized that the obligation to proceed to the impeachment committee stage arises immediately following a prima facie finding. This obligation remains in effect unless and until the report is set aside on review.
Addressing the jurisdictional concerns, Nevondwe argued that the Western Cape High Court is indeed the correct venue for this legal battle.
“In terms of section 172 subsection 2A of the Constitution, the High Court shares the power to make orders concerning the constitutional validity of the president’s conduct and usually acts as the court of first instance,” he explained. Therefore, he believes the president was correct to approach this specific court for both the review and the urgent interdict, though he acknowledges the matter remains subject to the court’s final interpretation.
Despite the looming legal battle, the legislative process is moving forward. The Impeachment Committee is scheduled to convene on June 24 to deliberate on its terms of reference, signaling that the investigation will continue its work while the High Court considers the interdict application.
