PRETORIA — Parliament’s impeachment process regarding the Phala Phala matter has exposed significant institutional flaws, leaving the courts to intervene, according to attorney and legal expert Modidima Mannya. Mannya asserts that the limitations of the Section 89 panel, combined with flawed National Assembly rules and the absence of an alternative dispute-resolution mechanism, have inevitably subjected the proceedings to judicial review.
Addressing claims that judicial intervention sets a dangerous precedent, Mannya clarified that judicial oversight of Parliament is a constitutional safeguard. In a constitutional democracy, the exercise of public power by any entity, including Parliament and the President, is subject to judicial control. The Constitutional Court has previously found the National Assembly’s rules to be flawed, explicitly indicating the necessary corrective measures.
The legal expert highlighted that the impeachment process inherently entails a “full frontal attack” on the President’s dignity. Given the President’s national and international stature, the personal and reputational implications are severe. Mannya warned of a critical risk: the President could be impeached, only for the underlying Section 89 report to later be reviewed and set aside due to procedural flaws. Such an outcome would cause irreversible damage and humiliation, even if the President were theoretically reinstated.
Despite calls from some quarters to handle the upcoming September review with urgency, Mannya stated that the impeachment process is effectively “dead and buried.” He explained that the review, scheduled between the 2nd and 4th of September, cannot be heard on an urgent basis. Urgent matters are strictly regulated by Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court, which applies only to irreparable harm or life-and-death situations.
A standard High Court review is an involved process, with reserved judgments typically taking at least three months. This timeline pushes a potential ruling to December, coinciding with the parliamentary recess and the November elections. Furthermore, subsequent appeal processes could drag the matter into the Constitutional Court years later, by which time a new administration may already be in office, rendering the impeachment of a former president moot.
Mannya pointed to a profound failure of leadership from all angles. The Constitution envisages cooperation between arms of the state, and holding the President accountable does not require acrimony. The inability of both the National Assembly and the President to reach a procedural agreement to expedite and resolve the matter has created a lose-lose scenario.
The prolonged dispute has also fostered a toxic political environment. Mannya noted that the process is increasingly perceived by the public as a personal witch hunt, causing it to lose credibility and devolve into a sideshow that distracts from the core issue of whether the allegations against the President are substantiated. More alarmingly, statements by Members of Parliament casting aspersions on the judiciary’s integrity threaten to agitate public disrespect for the courts, posing a serious affront to constitutional democracy.
Regarding the merits of the review, Mannya addressed a minority judgment in which Judge Francis observed that the grounds for President Ramaphosa’s review were weak. However, Mannya cautioned that this does not guarantee the report will stand. The review court may still identify flaws that warrant setting the report aside. In such a scenario, the court would need to craft an equitable remedy, potentially determining whether the process must start from scratch and how the National Assembly could still fulfill its constitutional mandate to hold the President accountable without repeating the same procedural errors.
