CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — The ongoing Phala Phala impeachment process has laid bare critical institutional weaknesses within the legislative body, according to attorney and legal expert Modidima Mannya. Mannya emphasizes that Parliament’s failure to manage internal disputes has inevitably forced the judiciary to step in, transforming what should be a political accountability mechanism into a complex legal battleground.
Mannya pointed to three specific vulnerabilities that exposed the proceedings to legal challenge: the operational constraints of the Section 89 panel, the Constitutional Court’s prior finding that National Assembly rules are fundamentally flawed, and a glaring absence of an alternative dispute-resolution framework. Addressing concerns that court intervention sets a harmful precedent, Mannya clarified that judicial oversight is a foundational constitutional safeguard. In a democratic state, any entity exercising public power remains subject to judicial review.
The legal expert also addressed the severe personal implications of the proceedings, describing impeachment as a “full frontal attack” on the President’s dignity. Given the President’s domestic and international stature, Mannya warned of a catastrophic scenario: the President could be removed from office, only for the foundational Section 89 report to be later reviewed and set aside due to procedural errors. Such an outcome would inflict irreversible reputational damage, regardless of any theoretical reinstatement.
Consequently, Mannya declared the impeachment process effectively “dead and buried.” While some advocates are pushing for an expedited review scheduled between September 2 and 4, Mannya noted that courts do not treat such matters as urgent. Under Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court, urgency is reserved strictly for irreparable harm or life-and-death scenarios. A standard High Court review is a lengthy procedure, with reserved judgments typically taking a minimum of three months. This timeline pushes any potential ruling into December, coinciding with the parliamentary recess and the November elections.
The legal labyrinth does not end there. Subsequent appeal processes could extend the litigation for years, potentially landing the matter before the Constitutional Court long after a new administration has taken office, rendering the impeachment of a former leader moot. Mannya identified this prolonged stalemate as a profound leadership failure, noting that both the National Assembly and the President failed to collaboratively establish a streamlined procedural agreement to resolve the deadlock.
This institutional gridlock has fostered a toxic political climate. Mannya observed that the prolonged saga is increasingly viewed by the public as a partisan witch hunt, stripping the process of its credibility and reducing it to a procedural sideshow. More alarmingly, when Members of Parliament publicly question the judiciary’s motives—suggesting courts are merely protecting the President—it actively agitates public distrust and undermines the integrity of the constitutional democracy.
Finally, Mannya addressed the nuances of a minority judgment wherein Judge Francis suggested the grounds for President Ramaphosa’s review were weak. However, Mannya cautioned that this observation does not guarantee the Section 89 report will survive intact. A review court may still identify sufficient flaws to warrant setting the report aside. In such an event, the court would be tasked with crafting an equitable remedy, balancing the constitutional need to hold the President accountable with the necessity of restarting a procedurally sound process from scratch.
