PRETORIA, Gauteng — South Africa’s Constitutional Court has officially rejected a bid by multiple political parties to restart the Cyril Ramaphosa impeachment process, ruling that bypassing standard legal channels is not in the interests of justice. The apex court’s decision ensures that parliamentary public hearings into the Phala Phala scandal remain paused until the Western Cape High Court evaluates the President’s review application in early September.
Relying on Section 167 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court determined that granting immediate leave to appeal would be premature. The court noted that President Ramaphosa’s main application to review and set aside the Section 89 independent panel report is scheduled to be heard from September 2 to 4. Because this upcoming review could render the current interim interdict moot, the court ruled against allowing the opposition parties direct access to the apex court.
Lawson Naidoo, Executive Director of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC), stated that the dismissal was entirely expected. He explained that interim interdicts are temporary by nature and rarely subject to appeal.
The legal push was primarily initiated by the African Transformation Movement (ATM) and its parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula, who argued that the initial interdict impeded Parliament’s constitutional duty to hold the executive accountable. They were later joined in the application by the EFF, the MK Party, and the UAT—the latter two having recently been denied leave to file replying affidavits in the matter.
However, Naidoo characterized their direct access bid as a calculated maneuver rather than a sound legal argument. Describing the attempt as a “frivolous application,” Naidoo suggested the opposition parties were “hoping against hope” to force the President into the dock to embarrass him and his political party ahead of upcoming local government elections. He noted that the political factions were fully aware they were on thin legal ice but utilized the court process as a pressure tactic.
Despite the halt on substantive public hearings, the parliamentary impeachment committee is not entirely grounded. Respecting the Western Cape High Court’s initial order, the committee confirmed it will continue its preparatory work. This includes finalizing its draft terms of reference and proceeding with the contested nomination of Advocate Griffiths Madonsela to serve as the evidence leader, a process that has faced some internal objections but remains underway.
The Speaker of the National Assembly also filed a notice to abide by the court’s decision. By providing an explanatory affidavit on parliamentary rules without taking sides, the Speaker left operational and strategic decisions entirely to the impeachment committee. Notably, the committee had previously voted to join the Constitutional Court proceedings without formal legal counsel to advise them on the steep jurisdictional hurdles of appealing an interim interdict.
The focus now shifts entirely to the Western Cape High Court, where President Ramaphosa seeks to challenge the independent panel’s finding that he may have violated the Constitution following the 2020 theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala farm.
According to Naidoo, the President has “reasonable prospects of success” in his review application. Ramaphosa’s legal team argues the independent panel applied the wrong legal threshold—relying on a prima facie case rather than the higher standard of “sufficient evidence” required by National Assembly rules. Furthermore, the President contends the panel improperly entertained inadmissible hearsay, failed to interview witnesses, and neglected to hear oral testimony despite being staffed by legal professionals.
However, legal experts warn that a procedural victory may not entirely erase the political fallout. Naidoo emphasized that even if the President successfully sets aside the panel’s report, the overarching issue remains unresolved. He stressed that Ramaphosa must ultimately bring the nation into his confidence regarding the Phala Phala burglary and how his office handled the aftermath, ensuring executive accountability regardless of the court’s final procedural findings.
