CAPE TOWN — The Western Cape High Court has officially interdicted Parliament’s Impeachment Committee from proceeding with public hearings in the impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa. The ruling grants the president’s request to halt the proceedings pending his review application of the Section 89 Independent Panel report, which previously indicated he had a case to answer regarding alleged theft at his Phala Phala farm.
The African National Congress (ANC) has welcomed the judgment, framing it as a necessary affirmation of the president’s constitutional right to seek legal relief. Mika Mahlaule, head of the ANC’s impeachment study group, stated that the party is satisfied with the outcome. While acknowledging that one of the three presiding judges felt the president did not establish a sufficient case for the interdict, Mahlaule emphasized that the majority judgment specifically precludes Parliament from conducting public hearings at this stage.
Mahlaule criticized opposition parties for attempting to transform the constitutional mechanism into a “political football,” particularly referencing their push to have the president testify as the first witness. He reiterated that the presidency is the highest office in the country and must be treated with fairness and impartiality, noting that while political opposition is expected, it should not derail due process.
Echoing this sentiment, ANC parliamentary whip Cameron Dugmore highlighted that the ruling provides crucial procedural clarity rather than a verdict on the merits of the allegations. Dugmore clarified that the president’s application was strictly aimed at pausing the public hearings until the review application, which is scheduled to be heard in September, can be concluded. He stressed that the judgment does not halt all committee activities, allowing background administrative work to continue uninterrupted.
Both spokespersons outlined the ANC’s preferred “two-prong” approach moving forward. Before advancing to new hearings, the committee should thoroughly examine existing findings from other state institutions, including the South African Reserve Bank, the South African Revenue Service (SARS), and the Public Protector. Dugmore described immediate demands for the president to testify as “irrational and unpopular,” advocating instead for a methodical, two-stage process that seeks the truth through established facts and prior investigative records.
As the deadline approaches for political parties to submit their considerations on the draft rules and terms of reference, the ANC is actively engaging with governing coalition partners to find common ground. Dugmore noted that the committee must first take the time to study the detailed reasons behind the court’s brief ruling before finalizing the appointment of evidence leaders or setting a new program of action.
Meanwhile, proceedings outside the courtroom were marked by unrelated community protests chanting for the release of an individual named Ralph Stanfield. Organizers confirmed the demonstration had no connection to the Phala Phala impeachment judgment, though it contributed to a commotion on the courthouse steps during the delivery of the ruling.
