JOHANNESBURG, Gauteng — Escalating a high-stakes constitutional battle, a parliamentary committee has officially launched a Ramaphosa impeachment appeal at the Constitutional Court, challenging a recent Western Cape High Court ruling that stalled their proceedings. The 31-member legislative body is seeking to overturn an interim interdict granted to President Cyril Ramaphosa, arguing that the lower court committed judicial overreach by obstructing the legislature’s constitutional mandate to hold the executive accountable.
The legal clash centers on an independent panel report which previously indicated that the president may have violated the Constitution regarding the 2020 theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala farm. Following the report, Ramaphosa approached the Western Cape High Court, successfully arguing that he would suffer irreparable harm if the parliamentary committee continued its work while he pursues a formal review of the panel’s findings.
However, the impeachment committee is now taking the matter directly to the highest court in the land. Vuyo Zungula, the African Transformation Movement (ATM) parliamentary leader and a key member of the committee, outlined the fundamental legal flaws the committee believes are present in the High Court’s majority judgment.
According to Zungula, the lower court applied the “wrong test” and failed to properly assess the actual prospects of success regarding the president’s future review application before issuing the interdict. He emphasized that Parliament is strictly obligated under Sections 42(3) and 89 of the Constitution to execute its oversight duties. To support the appeal, the committee is leaning on the established “Gandler” judgment—a legal precedent that dictates how courts must constrain themselves and avoid prescribing how Parliament exercises its independent constitutional responsibilities. By ordering a halt to public impeachment hearings, Zungula argues, the High Court violated the separation of powers doctrine.
The decision to escalate the Ramaphosa impeachment appeal to the Constitutional Court was not unilateral; it was finalized through a formal committee vote. Zungula confirmed that the motion received near-unanimous backing, with the notable exception of the African National Congress (ANC) and its allied sub-parties, the Patriotic Alliance (PA) and Al Jama-ah.
Zungula did not mince words regarding the political divide, accusing the ANC and its allies of attempting to shield the president from a transparent process. He contrasted this with the ATM and other opposition parties, whom he described as fighting to protect both the functionality of Parliament from executive interference and the ultimate sanctity of the presidential office itself.
Time is of the essence for the lawmakers. The ATM has formally requested that the Constitutional Court treat the matter as urgent, proposing a hearing window between August 10 and August 14. The committee’s objective is to secure a definitive ruling before the start of September, ensuring that their legislative work is not further paralyzed by what they view as a misguided and unconstitutional interdict. The Office of the Chief Justice previously set an August 5 deadline for any opposing parties to formally indicate their intention to challenge the application, a step that will trigger the finalization of the court’s hearing timeline.
Reaffirming the legislature’s commitment to its oversight role, Zungula stressed that the head of state must not be permitted to sidestep scrutiny.
“We want the truth, we want answers, we want evidence, and let the evidence clear the president, not some legal gymnastics or legal loopholes,” Zungula stated. He maintained that no individual, regardless of the power of their office, should be allowed to utilize state machinery to evade accountability, insisting that the committee remains dedicated to an evidence-based process.
