CAPE TOWN — President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application to halt the ongoing impeachment process has triggered a major legal showdown, with Parliament’s Impeachment Committee resolving to oppose the move in the Western Cape High Court. The president’s legal team is seeking to stay the proceedings while a review of the Section 89 Independent Panel Report is finalized.
The president approached the High Court last week, filing the urgent interdict to stop the impeachment process. His primary goal is to secure a ruling on his application to review the independent panel’s report, which previously found a prima facie case against him regarding the Phala Phala matter.
In response to the president’s legal bid, Parliament’s Impeachment Committee—which was directed by a recent Constitutional Court judgment to investigate the president—has resolved to oppose the interdict application if National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza fails to do so. The committee also intends to invite Didiza to join in the opposition.
The jurisdictional validity of the president’s application has already sparked debate among legal minds. An independent legal advisor recently argued that the Western Cape High Court lacks the jurisdiction to evaluate a ruling made by the Constitutional Court. However, constitutional law experts offer varying interpretations of the legal framework.
Advocate Lufuno Nevondwe, a constitutional law expert from the University of Limpopo, noted that while the matter is subject to different interpretations, the High Court likely possesses the necessary authority.
“In terms of section 172 subsection 2A of the Constitution, the High Court shares the power to make orders concerning the constitutional validity of the president’s conduct and usually acts as the court of first instance,” Nevondwe explained. “I am of the view that the president was correct to approach the High Court for a review and the urgent interdict.”
Nevondwe was not surprised by the president’s latest legal maneuver, suggesting that the interdict was expected and ideally should have been launched alongside the initial review application. According to Nevondwe, the president’s argument hinges on the claim that he will suffer irreparable harm and that his dignity will be compromised if Parliament proceeds with the impeachment before his review application is heard in September 2026.
The president’s legal team argues that if he ultimately succeeds in his review, Parliament will have undertaken extensive work based on a report that is later set aside. Nevondwe noted that the president is preserving his constitutional rights, and Parliament was also anticipating the interdict, as the president had previously reached out to the legislature to request a pause in the proceedings.
Conversely, Parliament is defending its constitutional mandate to hold the executive accountable and to implement the Constitutional Court’s judgment. The apex court ruled that the impeachment process can only be halted if another court sets aside the Section 89 Independent Panel Report.
Referencing paragraph 139 of the Constitutional Court judgment, the Chief Justice highlighted the obligation to proceed to the impeachment committee stage after a prima facie finding. Since no court has yet set aside the independent panel’s report, the Constitutional Court judgment stands, and the Impeachment Committee must proceed with its work.
Despite the pending legal challenges in the High Court, the legislative process continues. The Impeachment Committee is scheduled to sit on June 24 to consider its terms of reference, signaling that Parliament is pressing ahead with its constitutional duties.
