PRETORIA, Gauteng — The African Transformation Movement (ATM) and its parliamentary leader, Vuyo Zungula, have filed an urgent application in the Constitutional Court to challenge the Western Cape High Court’s interim interdict halting the Phala Phala impeachment committee proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa. The urgent appeal seeks to overturn the suspension of the parliamentary probe, arguing that the recent court order creates legal uncertainty and undermines constitutional accountability.
The legal battle stems from the 2020 theft of foreign currency at President Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm, which prompted the formation of a Section 89 Independent Panel. The Western Cape High Court recently granted the President an interim interdict suspending the impeachment committee pending the outcome of his review application challenging the panel’s findings.
Speaking on the urgent constitutional challenge, Zungula argued that the High Court’s order is fundamentally vague and conflicts with Section 1 of the Constitution, which enshrines the rule of law. He noted a critical discrepancy: the President’s original application sought to halt the impeachment proceedings in their entirety, but the court’s order specifically suspended only the “public impeachment hearings.”
According to Zungula, this distinction creates a precarious situation lacking legal certainty, leaving parliamentarians unsure of how to proceed. He emphasized that for the rule of law to reign supreme, court orders must not be open to conflicting interpretations or be unenforceable.
Zungula further anchored the ATM’s argument in legal precedent, citing a 2012 Constitutional Court ruling (Godana 5812). He stated that when a court grants an interdict impacting the functioning of a state functionary, it is imperative for the court to assess the prospects of success of the main review application. The recent Western Cape High Court judgment, he argued, failed to make any such assessment regarding the review application scheduled for September, directly contradicting established constitutional guidelines.
Addressing the President’s reported concerns that the impeachment process could humiliate him or impugn his dignity, Zungula drew comparisons to previous Western Cape High Court judgments involving the Public Protector. In those instances, full benches ruled unequivocally that the constitutional obligation for accountability trumps an office bearer’s claim of potential humiliation.
“There is no dignity of the president that will be impuged in that particular process,” Zungula stated, noting that the Section 89 report has been in the public domain since December 2022. He argued that subjecting any public office bearer to a constitutionally mandated process of scrutiny is not humiliation, but rather an opportunity for the President to dispel any alleged mistruths on the record.
The ambiguity of the current interdict is already causing friction in parliamentary operations. While Mahashu Ghana, the head of the impeachment committee, recently indicated that he has consulted with legal teams and believes preparatory work will continue for upcoming meetings, the African National Congress (ANC) released a statement interpreting the judgment as a complete halt to all committee work. Zungula cited this exact contradiction as proof that the Constitutional Court must intervene to provide definitive legal clarity and protect Parliament’s Section 59 constitutional mandate to conduct its affairs openly.
In a separate but related development concerning state accountability, breaking reports indicate that Andrea Johnson, head of the IDC, has written to the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) requesting permission to resign.
When asked for commentary on the matter, Zungula welcomed the potential resignation, stressing the critical need for ethical leadership within law enforcement and oversight institutions. He referenced past commission testimony that suggested a level of prejudice in her conduct, stating that individuals at the helm of such institutions must inspire public trust and operate without fear, favor, or prejudice. Zungula expressed hope that a credible individual committed to the integrity of the office would be appointed to ensure the proper administration of law and order.
The Constitutional Court is now tasked with determining whether the exceptional circumstances of this case warrant direct access and a review of the interim interdict, a decision that will have profound implications for the trajectory of the Phala Phala impeachment proceedings.
