CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — The African Transformation Movement has formally declared its intention to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa‘s urgent legal application to halt the ongoing impeachment process. The political standoff, rooted in the controversial Phala Phala scandal, is set for a showdown in the Western Cape High Court, with the party pushing for an expedited hearing.
In correspondence directed to the Judge President of the court, the ATM’s legal representatives confirmed they will contest the interdict. However, rather than seeking delays, the party’s leader, Vuyo Zungula, has proposed that the court expedite the matter, suggesting a hearing date no later than June 22. Zungula has been highly critical of the President, accusing him of employing stalling tactics to evade accountability. He further cautioned that any interruption to the impeachment committee’s proceedings could be viewed as contempt of the Constitutional Court.
The legal friction began when Ramaphosa filed an urgent application to interdict the parliamentary process, arguing that the continued proceedings would inflict irreparable damage to his reputation. Despite this filing, the 31-member impeachment committee—led by chairperson Makashule Gana—retains the legal authority to proceed with its preparatory tasks unless the court explicitly grants the President’s interdict.
ActionSA’s parliamentary leader, Athol Trollip, dismissed the President’s claims of reputational harm, arguing that Ramaphosa brought the damage upon himself. Trollip drew parallels to the tenure of the former president, describing the current legal maneuvering as “deja vu” of a leader who constantly avoided his day in court. Demanding direct answers, Trollip insisted the President must explain the presence of undisclosed foreign currency stuffed inside a couch at his residence, clarify the exact amount involved, and justify why a formal charge was not lodged with the South African Police Service.
Citing a Constitutional Court ruling from four years ago that deemed it unlawful to halt a section 89 committee, Trollip emphasized that Parliament’s duty is to safeguard the constitution, not to shield the President’s personal reputation.
Defending the President’s legal strategy, ANC Secretary General Fikile Mbalula stated that Ramaphosa is entirely within his rights to exhaust all available legal avenues to challenge the proceedings.
Providing context to the escalating legal drama, Professor Sethulego Matebesi, a political analyst at the University of the Free State, noted that the President’s use of legal recourse is a constitutional right available to all citizens. Matebesi explained that the urgent application creates “parallel legal hazards,” allowing Ramaphosa to argue that Parliament should pause its work while the review is active, even in light of the existing Constitutional Court judgment. He raised questions about whether the previous ruling applies exclusively to the Phala Phala matter and stressed that Parliament must develop new rules to handle future presidential impeachments.
Looking ahead to the upcoming local government elections—following the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU) and a decline in ANC voter participation—Matebesi warned that the saga will subject both the President and the ruling party to intense public scrutiny. He noted that opposition parties will likely weaponize the situation to accuse the ANC of disregarding the separation of powers and defying constitutional court directives.
In response, the ANC is expected to lean on the argument that every citizen, including the head of state, has the right to seek judicial review. Matebesi concluded that while democratic leaders should ideally be transparent with the public, the current political climate makes it highly unlikely for a sitting president to admit fault and resign, ensuring the battle will be settled strictly in the courts.