CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — The impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa has been temporarily suspended after the Western Cape High Court issued an interdict blocking Parliament’s Impeachment Committee from advancing its public hearings. The Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC) has weighed in on the development, emphasizing that the judiciary is fulfilling its constitutional duty as the ultimate arbiter between competing branches of government.
The legal pause stems from an application brought by President Ramaphosa, who sought to halt the parliamentary proceedings while he pursues a judicial review of the Section 89 Independent Panel report. That panel previously concluded that the President had a case to answer concerning allegations of theft at his Phala Phala farm.
According to Lawson Naidoo, Executive Secretary of CASAC, the High Court’s decision was delivered via a divided bench that produced three separate opinions. Two judges concurred in granting the interdict to the President, while one issued a dissenting judgment. Although the full written motivations for the ruling are still pending, Naidoo noted that the interdict represents a clear procedural victory for the President, effectively freezing the substantive phases of the parliamentary inquiry, such as the calling and testing of witnesses.
The trajectory of the impeachment now hinges entirely on the main review application, which is scheduled to be heard in early September. Naidoo outlined two distinct potential outcomes. Should the President succeed in having the independent panel’s report set aside by the court, the foundational basis for the parliamentary impeachment would collapse, bringing the process to a permanent end. Conversely, if the review application fails, the impeachment committee will be cleared to resume its substantive work, evaluating the evidence against the President as outlined in the motion originally passed by Parliament in 2022.
Addressing procedural questions, Naidoo clarified that because this was an urgent application, there is no immediate legal avenue for an appeal against the interdict itself, making it a final and binding order for the time being. Any future appeals would only arise from the eventual judgment of the main review application.
Despite the halt, the impeachment committee is still expected to convene next Wednesday. Naidoo indicated that the committee will likely proceed with finalizing its terms of reference, a step he described as highly valuable. Establishing these parameters will not be wasted effort, as it will create a foundational framework for any future impeachment processes Parliament may need to undertake. However, he noted that the appointment of evidence leaders is more contentious, and any finalization of those specific roles will likely be deferred until the review application is resolved.
The ruling has also reignited public debate regarding the separation of powers, with some critics questioning the judiciary’s authority to direct parliamentary operations. Naidoo firmly rejected the notion that the court overstepped, arguing that such intervention is the precise mechanism envisioned by the Constitution.
He pointed out that when disagreements arise between the executive and the legislature, the courts are explicitly designed to act as the final adjudicator. To illustrate this, Naidoo referenced a Constitutional Court judgment from May of this year, which declared a specific parliamentary rule unconstitutional. He noted the inherent contradiction in political actors who previously petitioned the courts to intervene in parliamentary affairs, only to object when the judiciary exercises that same oversight in a different context.
Ultimately, Naidoo concluded that while the courts possess a limited jurisdiction to intervene in legislative matters, this specific interdict was a necessary constitutional safeguard. In this instance, the President’s fundamental right to be protected from unfair prejudice temporarily outweighs Parliament’s procedural momentum.
