JOHANNESBURG, Gauteng — The Constitutional Court has officially dismissed a direct access application by several political parties seeking to appeal a ruling that halted the impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa. In a decisive move, the apex court found it was not in the interests of justice to hear the matter, effectively pausing parliamentary public hearings into the Phala Phala scandal until the Western Cape High Court reviews the independent panel’s report this September.
Relying on Section 167 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court determined that granting the political parties immediate leave to appeal would be premature. The court noted that President Ramaphosa’s main application to review and set aside the Section 89 independent panel report is scheduled to be heard from September 2 to 4. Because this upcoming review could render the current interim interdict moot, the court ruled against bypassing standard legal procedures.
Lawson Naidoo, Executive Director of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC), stated that the dismissal came as no surprise. He explained that interim interdicts are generally temporary in nature and rarely appealable to higher courts.
The legal push was primarily driven by the African Transformation Movement (ATM) and its parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula, who argued that the interdict impeded Parliament’s ability to hold the executive accountable. They were later joined in the application by the EFF, the MK Party, and the UAT. However, Naidoo characterized their direct access bid as a calculated maneuver rather than a sound legal argument.
“It was clearly a political strategy on behalf of these political parties, not a legal one,” Naidoo said, describing the attempt as a “frivolous application.” He suggested the opposition parties were “hoping against hope” to force the President into the dock to embarrass him and his political party ahead of upcoming local government elections, knowing they were on thin ice legally.
Despite the halt on substantive public hearings, the parliamentary impeachment committee is not entirely grounded. Respecting the Western Cape High Court’s initial order, the committee confirmed it will continue its preparatory work. This includes finalizing its draft terms of reference and proceeding with the contested nomination of Advocate Griffiths Madonsela SC to serve as the evidence leader.
The Speaker of the National Assembly also filed a notice to abide by the court’s decision. By providing an explanatory affidavit on parliamentary rules without taking sides, the Speaker left operational and strategic decisions entirely to the impeachment committee, which had previously voted to join the Constitutional Court proceedings without formal legal counsel.
The focus now shifts entirely to the Western Cape High Court, where President Ramaphosa seeks to challenge the independent panel’s finding that he may have violated the Constitution following the 2020 theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala farm.
According to Naidoo, the President has “reasonable prospects of success” in his review application. Ramaphosa’s legal team argues the independent panel applied the wrong legal threshold—relying on a prima facie case rather than the higher standard of “sufficient evidence” required by National Assembly rules. Furthermore, the President contends the panel improperly entertained inadmissible hearsay and failed to interview witnesses or hear oral testimony.
However, legal experts warn that a legal victory may not entirely erase the political fallout. Naidoo emphasized that even if the President successfully sets aside the panel’s report, the overarching issue remains unresolved. “The abiding question is going to be that the President must still account in some way or another,” Naidoo noted, stressing that Ramaphosa must ultimately bring the nation into his confidence regarding the Phala Phala burglary and how his office handled the aftermath.
