CAPE TOWN, Western Cape – The African Transformation Movement (ATM) has officially entered the legal fray surrounding the Phala Phala impeachment proceedings, filing documents in the Western Cape High Court to block President Cyril Ramaphosa from halting the process. ATM Parliamentary Leader Vuyolwethu Zungula confirmed the party’s legal intervention, emphasizing that the legislature must fiercely protect its constitutional mandate against executive interference.
Defending Parliamentary Independence
The parliamentary impeachment committee has also resolved to challenge the President’s interdict. Zungula argued that Ramaphosa’s legal maneuver aims to stall Parliament from executing its constitutional duties, a move he says directly contravenes a previous Constitutional Court directive.
The ATM leader strongly pushed back against the President’s primary legal argument—that the impeachment process would irreparably damage his dignity and reputation. Zungula asserted that no head of state’s personal dignity supersedes their constitutional obligation to face accountability. He warned that allowing such arguments would create a dangerous loophole, enabling any sitting president to easily evade scrutiny by claiming reputational harm.
Highlighting the current stage of the proceedings, Zungula clarified that the process remains strictly a fact-finding mission. Because no final decision on culpability has been reached, he argued that the President’s rights are not being infringed upon, making the attempt to prematurely shut down an investigation unjustified.
As a member of the impeachment committee, the ATM is urging Parliament to uphold its institutional precedents. Zungula drew parallels to the Section 194 impeachment process, where Parliament successfully went to court to defend its right to independently determine its processes without external strong-arming. He stressed that while clear laws exist to ensure presidential accountability, incumbents often leverage their political capital to frustrate these legal mechanisms.
Addressing Bias Concerns and Prima Facie Evidence
Addressing recent legal counsel advising the committee to avoid expressing personal opinions on the merits of the case to prevent bias, Zungula confirmed the ATM’s compliance. However, he distinguished between personal bias and reliance on established legal findings.
The independent panel’s report already established prima facie evidence of serious constitutional violations and misconduct by the President. Zungula explained that prima facie evidence is legally accepted as fact until proven otherwise. Therefore, committee members agreeing with the panel’s conclusions are not expressing personal opinions, but rather acknowledging a formal legal finding that the President must now actively disprove.
Rebutting the Hearsay Argument
Ramaphosa’s legal team has argued that the 2022 panel report relied on hearsay and that the panel misdirected itself. Zungula dismissed this, pointing out that the President’s own submissions relied on second-hand accounts from the farm manager and other involved figures.
The independent panel, he noted, thoroughly reviewed all available information—including the initial motion, submitted evidence, the President’s own statements, and input from other involved parties—before concluding that a full-blown inquiry was warranted. Zungula emphasized that the panel could not declare definitive wrongdoing, as that is the very purpose of the current impeachment committee.
He concluded by stating that the upcoming full inquiry will provide the President with his legal team and every possible opportunity to formally refute the allegations against him.