JOHANNESBURG, GAUTENG — The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has approached the Constitutional Court to challenge President Cyril Ramaphosa’s interdict against the Section 89 impeachment inquiry, arguing that the Western Cape High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by halting the Phala Phala proceedings. As the impeachment committee continues its preparations, EFF Deputy President Godrich Gardee stated that the legal maneuver undermines Parliament’s constitutional oversight role and sets a perilous precedent for executive accountability.
At the heart of the EFF’s legal argument is the assertion that the Western Cape High Court lacked the competency to entertain Ramaphosa’s review and interdict application. According to Gardee, because the matter involves an existing order from the Constitutional Court, only the apex court has the jurisdiction to entertain challenges regarding its own orders and their implications. The EFF is seeking direct access to the Constitutional Court to resolve this procedural flaw, arguing that direct access is justified when the apex court’s own orders are being challenged.
Gardee emphasized that allowing a court order to interdict parliamentary executive oversight creates a dangerous precedent. He warned that this could be abused by various ministers to evade accountability from parliamentary portfolio committees. Drawing a sharp comparison, the EFF Deputy President argued that halting an investigative parliamentary process—which is inherently subject to public scrutiny—is no different from interdicting the South African Police Service (SAPS) or the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) from investigating a crime where prima facie evidence exists. He noted that the oversight process is preliminary and could ultimately exonerate the President by removing the “dark cloud” surrounding the matter.
Addressing the political context, Gardee accused Ramaphosa of employing delay tactics reminiscent of the “Stalingrad defense” used in former President Jacob Zuma’s long-running Arms Deal criminal case. He alleged that Ramaphosa is attempting to conceal how million-dollar foreign exchange was used as currency for buffalo in the Phala Phala matter, drawing parallels to the concealment of the CR17 donor list. Gardee also referenced the Nkandla “firepool” controversy, arguing that Ramaphosa is repeating past mistakes where Parliament was found delinquent in discharging its duties by second-guessing the Public Protector’s reports.
On the procedural front, the EFF is coordinating with other opposition parties, including the African Transformation Movement (ATM). Gardee clarified that the EFF has approached the court to be declared a third applicant, rather than remaining a respondent as initially cited by the ATM. The party’s founding affidavit is designed to serve a dual purpose: securing the court’s consent to be recognized as an applicant and acting as an answering affidavit to the current applicants.
Looking ahead, Gardee dismissed the notion that Ramaphosa’s actions will meaningfully delay the outcome, noting that the President, a law graduate from the University of Limpopo, should be aware that such legal shenanigans will not succeed in the judiciary. If the Constitutional Court does not grant their request, the EFF and ATM plan to proceed in the Western Cape High Court for the main application on September 1, 2, or 3. Gardee maintained that because the interdict has an impact of finality, it is appealable, and the EFF remains committed to testing these legal waters to bring certainty to the country’s political and legal landscape.
