CAPE TOWN, Western Cape – The African Transformation Movement (ATM) has filed papers in the Western Cape High Court to formally oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s bid to halt the impeachment process regarding the Phala Phala farm controversy. ATM Parliamentary Leader Vuyolwethu Zungula outlined the party’s legal stance, emphasizing the critical need to uphold constitutional accountability and protect the independence of the legislature.
The legal challenge comes as the parliamentary impeachment committee prepares to proceed with its review of the Section 89 independent panel report. According to Zungula, the President’s attempt to interdict Parliament undermines both the legislature’s constitutional obligations and a prior Constitutional Court order that mandated the process.
Addressing the core of the President’s legal argument, Zungula dismissed the claim that Ramaphosa’s dignity and reputation would be irreparably harmed by the impeachment proceedings. He argued that a head of state’s personal dignity cannot be considered supreme over the constitutional mandate to be held accountable. Zungula warned that allowing sitting presidents to stall investigations by claiming reputational damage would set a dangerous precedent, enabling any leader to easily avoid scrutiny.
Because the current phase is strictly a fact-finding mission, Zungula noted that no final decision on culpability has been made, meaning the President’s rights are not being infringed. He stressed that the ATM is pushing Parliament to defend its institutional integrity, drawing parallels to previous Section 194 impeachment processes where the legislature successfully defended its right to determine its own processes without being strong-armed by external institutions.
The ATM leader also addressed recent legal advice given to the impeachment committee, which urged members to refrain from expressing personal opinions on the merits of the case to avoid accusations of bias. Zungula confirmed that the ATM accepts this guidance but clarified that the committee’s work is firmly grounded in the independent panel’s report.
The panel’s report established prima facie evidence that the President seriously violated the constitution and committed serious misconduct. Zungula explained that prima facie evidence is accepted as fact until it is formally disproved. Therefore, he argued, it is not a personal opinion for Members of Parliament to agree with the panel’s findings; rather, they are relying on established legal conclusions. It is now up to the President to table evidence to disprove these findings during the process.
Furthermore, Zungula countered the President’s argument that the 2022 panel report was based on hearsay. He pointed out that the President’s own submissions included second-hand accounts, such as statements from the farm manager and other involved parties. Zungula maintained that the independent panel properly considered all submitted evidence—including the President’s responses—and correctly concluded that there was sufficient reason to institute a full-blown inquiry.
He concluded by noting that the full inquiry is precisely the appropriate venue for the President to utilize his legal advisers and exercise every opportunity to formally disprove the allegations against him.
