CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE – The Phala Phala impeachment process faces a major roadblock as the Cyril Ramaphosa court challenge seeks to suspend parliamentary proceedings. At the center of the controversy is National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, whose decision not to formally oppose the President’s urgent application has triggered intense political and legal backlash. The unfolding dispute has placed a spotlight on the separation of powers, the constitutional duties of the legislature, and the legal strategies being deployed in the Western Cape High Court.
The Interim Interdict and the Speaker’s Dilemma
President Cyril Ramaphosa has launched an urgent interim interdict application aimed at halting the parliamentary impeachment inquiry. His legal team argues that allowing the Section 89 proceedings to continue while his substantive review of the independent panel’s report is still pending would cause him irreparable harm and unfair prejudice.
While the parliamentary impeachment committee officially resolved to oppose the President’s application, Speaker Thoko Didiza charted a different course. Rather than joining the opposition, Didiza submitted an explanatory affidavit to the court. This document outlines the regulatory and legal arguments, detailing Parliament’s constitutional obligations and the procedural history of the impeachment process, but stops short of actively fighting the President’s interdict.
ACDP Demands Accountability Over Legal Opinions
Steve Swart, Parliamentary Whip for the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) and a member of the impeachment committee, has been highly critical of the Speaker’s approach. Swart argues that Didiza, as the guardian of Parliament’s integrity, had a constitutional duty to actively oppose the interdict to protect the legislature’s oversight role.
Swart revealed a significant controversy regarding the legal advice Didiza received. According to the ACDP Whip, the Speaker initially obtained a Senior Counsel opinion which explicitly advised that she had a strict legal duty to oppose the interdict. Unhappy with this finding, Didiza reportedly sought a second legal opinion—allegedly from a former ANC treasurer general—which concluded that she could simply abide by the court process without actively opposing it.
Swart condemned this move as unacceptable, suggesting that “opinion shopping” demonstrates bias and has fueled renewed political calls for the Speaker’s removal. Furthermore, Swart criticized the explanatory affidavit Didiza ultimately filed, arguing it fails to address the severe implications of the delays an interdict would cause. He warned that if the court grants the pause, Parliament’s work would be stalled until the review application is heard, a process that could take up to a year if subsequent appeals reach the Constitutional Court. Swart emphasized that under Section 237 of the Constitution, state obligations must be fulfilled without delay.
CASAC Defends Didiza’s Diligence and Impartiality
Offering a starkly different perspective, Lawson Naidoo, Executive Secretary of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC), defended the Speaker against the mounting criticism. Naidoo argued that those demanding Didiza’s removal have ignored the substance of her explanatory affidavit, which he believes will be immensely helpful to the High Court in navigating these uncharted constitutional waters.
Naidoo highlighted Didiza’s diligence following the Constitutional Court’s May 8 judgment, which declared certain National Assembly rules unconstitutional. He noted she acted promptly to establish the impeachment committee and provided it with the independent panel’s report. Furthermore, Naidoo pointed out that when Ramaphosa’s lawyers directly approached the Speaker’s office to demand a halt to the process, she refused to succumb to the pressure, correctly directing them to the impeachment committee.
Addressing the controversy over the legal opinions, Naidoo pushed back against the claim that seeking a second opinion constitutes bias. He explained that it is standard practice for litigants to seek multiple legal views to confirm their position before taking action.
Naidoo also took issue with the opposing affidavit filed by the impeachment committee chairperson, arguing it was based on flawed grounds. Specifically, he noted that the chairperson’s affidavit incorrectly claimed the Constitutional Court had considered the substance of the independent panel’s report, when in reality, the highest court only ruled on procedural aspects.
Weighing the Interest of Justice
The Western Cape High Court now faces the complex task of balancing competing constitutional imperatives. The judges must weigh the President’s argument that he will suffer irreversible prejudice from a potentially flawed report against the constitutional mandate that Parliament must execute its oversight duties without delay.
Both Swart and Naidoo agree that the court will heavily factor in this “interest of justice.” While Swart expressed doubt that Ramaphosa will succeed given the high legal bar required for an urgent interdict, he maintained that the Speaker should have proactively defended the legislature. Naidoo added that the court will carefully consider whether the potential harm to the President outweighs the institutional damage of delaying Parliament’s work.
Adding another layer to the legal battle, Swart questioned why Ramaphosa brought the matter to the High Court, though he acknowledged the jurisdictional nuance: the Constitutional Court had previously clarified it lacked jurisdiction over the matter, effectively forcing the President to approach the Western Cape High Court. Ultimately, the court’s decision will determine whether the Phala Phala impeachment process proceeds uninterrupted or faces a prolonged legal hiatus.