CAPE TOWN — The MK Party is mounting a vigorous legal and parliamentary defense against President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent application to halt impeachment proceedings, characterizing the Western Cape High Court bid as a transparent delaying tactic. Speaking to the media ahead of the hearing, MK Party deputy president John Hlophe asserted that the nation’s apex court has already delivered its directive, rendering any lower court attempt to interdict the mandated inquiry legally incompetent.
Hlophe traced the origins of the constitutional crisis back more than six years, when approximately $580,000 USD was discovered concealed beneath a mattress and couch at President Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm. He emphasized that because South Africa does not transact in US dollars, the discovery raised immediate red flags. As head of state, the President is prohibited from conducting private business, prompting a Section 89 panel inquiry chaired by retired Chief Justice Noble. The panel ultimately concluded that the National Assembly must refer the matter to an impeachment committee for deeper investigation.
However, Hlophe noted that the ANC leveraged its parliamentary majority to vote down the referral, with only five ANC members dissenting. Crucially, the current Speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza, was not among those five dissenting votes. Following subsequent litigation by the EFF and the ATM, the Constitutional Court reserved judgment for nearly two years. On May 8, 2026, the court ruled definitively that the impeachment committee must be established in accordance with Rule 129 of the National Assembly rules and permitted to execute its mandate.
According to Hlophe, Ramaphosa’s rush to the Western Cape High Court represents a desperate, secondary attempt to derail the process. He criticized the President’s legal team for initially failing to cite the political parties represented in the National Assembly, a move the MK Party identified as a deliberate stalling tactic that forced them to apply for leave to intervene. Hlophe argued that no court possesses the jurisdiction to review or interdict a binding Constitutional Court ruling. To illustrate this, he cited legal precedent involving Ramaphosa himself: when the President was previously sentenced to direct imprisonment for contempt of court, an application to interdict his incarceration was blocked. A judgment from the Natal division established that once the Constitutional Court speaks, its ruling is final and cannot be pronounced upon by any other court in the land.
Beyond the courtroom, Hlophe detailed aggressive parliamentary maneuvers initiated by the MK Party. During an impeachment committee meeting on June 18, 2026, committee chairperson Makashule Gana was advised by senior counsel to file an affidavit opposing Ramaphosa’s application. Hlophe alleged that Speaker Didiza ignored this counsel from an advocate, opting instead to file a notice to abide. Later that same afternoon, the Speaker reportedly sought retroactive justification for her decision from attorneys.
In response, the MK Party, supported by Dr. Mashadi of UAT, has filed a Rule 167 notice to summon the Speaker before the impeachment committee. Hlophe argued she must account for acting improperly by making a decision first and only seeking favorable legal advice afterward to shield the President from accountability.
Hlophe also revealed that the MK Party submitted a vote of no confidence against President Ramaphosa, which the Speaker has thus far refused to table. Furthermore, a separate Rule 167 motion filed by the MK Party to obtain the legal advice provided to the Speaker by Matthew Spora attorneys was blocked from being tabled by Makashule Gana. Hlophe sharply criticized Gana, describing him as a former Democratic Alliance member—a party he characterized as historically representing white minorities—and labeling him a current “project of the ANC” designed to protect the President.
The MK Party is also throwing its weight behind a vote of no confidence against the Speaker, recently filed by the EFF, and remains optimistic it will be tabled. If parliamentary avenues are continuously blocked, Hlophe warned, the party has a “Plan B” to publicly expose the impeachment inquiry chairperson’s conduct.
Concluding the briefing, Hlophe condemned the current power dynamics in the legislature, stating that the ANC has inverted the constitutional order by placing the executive above parliamentary oversight.
“What we are seeing under the ANC regime is the tail that is wagging the dog,” Hlophe stated. “The executive is being placed above parliament to avoid accountability by the president. He believes he is above the law, but he will be forced to account.”