PRETORIA, GAUTENG — The African Transformation Movement (ATM) and its parliamentary leader, Vuyo Zungula, have launched an urgent application in the Constitutional Court to challenge an interim interdict halting the Phala Phala impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa. The decisive legal maneuver seeks to overturn a recent Western Cape High Court ruling, with Zungula arguing that suspending the parliamentary probe creates dangerous legal ambiguity and undermines the constitutional mandate for accountability regarding the 2020 foreign currency theft at the President’s farm.
At the core of the ATM’s urgent appeal is the assertion that the High Court’s order is fundamentally vague and unconstitutional. Zungula highlighted a critical discrepancy in the legal relief granted: while President Ramaphosa’s initial application requested a complete suspension of the entire impeachment process pending his review of the Section 89 Independent Panel’s findings, the court’s order specifically halted only the *public* impeachment hearings. This distinction, Zungula warned, leaves Parliament in a state of operational limbo, where different political actors could legitimately interpret the ruling in opposing ways, thereby fracturing the rule of law.
To bolster their case for direct access, the ATM is leaning heavily on established constitutional jurisprudence, specifically referencing a 2012 Constitutional Court matter (Godana). Zungula emphasized that when a court issues an interdict affecting the functioning of a state functionary, it is legally imperative to evaluate the “prospects of success” of the main review application. The recent Western Cape judgment, he noted, completely omitted this crucial analysis for the review scheduled in September, setting a problematic precedent that the highest court in the land must now correct.
Addressing the President’s legal team’s argument that the impeachment process could cause humiliation or impugn his dignity, Zungula drew a sharp contrast with past rulings involving the Public Protector. He reminded observers that previous full-bench decisions in the Western Cape firmly established that the constitutional duty of parliamentary scrutiny supersedes an office bearer’s personal claims of reputational harm.
Furthermore, Zungula argued that since the Section 89 panel’s findings have been in the public domain since December 2022, the process poses no new threat to the President’s dignity. Parliament routinely holds ministers and chapter 9 institution heads to account without such objections. Instead, he framed the proceedings as a constitutionally mandated platform under Section 42(3) for Ramaphosa to publicly address and dispel any alleged inaccuracies, rather than a tool for humiliation.
The real-world impact of this legal ambiguity is already surfacing within the legislature. While Mahashu Ghana, the head of the impeachment committee, recently expressed confidence that preparatory work could continue following legal consultations, the African National Congress (ANC) issued a statement interpreting the court order as a total freeze on all committee activities. Zungula highlighted this exact contradiction as definitive proof that the Constitutional Court must intervene to provide clarity. He also warned that allowing private hearings while banning public ones could directly violate Section 59 of the Constitution, which mandates that the National Assembly conduct its business openly.
In a separate development touching on state accountability, breaking reports indicate that Andrea Johnson, head of the Independent Complaints Directorate (IDC), has submitted a letter to the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), Andy Motibi, as well as the President, seeking permission to resign.
When pressed on the matter, Zungula welcomed the potential departure. Citing previous commission testimony that raised concerns about prejudicial conduct, the ATM leader stressed that individuals overseeing law enforcement must operate with absolute integrity, without fear, favor, or prejudice. He expressed hope that the resignation would be swiftly accepted and that a credible, unbiased successor would be appointed to restore public trust in the institution’s oversight capabilities.
The Constitutional Court is now tasked with determining whether the exceptional circumstances of this case warrant direct access and a review of the interim interdict, a decision that will have profound implications for the trajectory of the Phala Phala impeachment proceedings.
