CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — The African Transformation Movement has officially notified the Western Cape High Court of its intention to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent application to halt the parliamentary impeachment process surrounding the Phala Phala scandal.
In a letter addressed to the Judge President of the court, the ATM’s legal team confirmed their opposition to the interdict but proposed expediting the legal battle. The party has requested that the matter be set down for a hearing no later than June 22. ATM leader Vuyo Zungula accused the President of employing delaying tactics to evade accountability, warning that any suspension of the impeachment committee’s work could constitute contempt of the Constitutional Court.
The President recently launched an urgent application in the Western Cape High Court to interdict the proceedings, arguing that the ongoing process would cause him irreparable reputational harm. However, the 31-member impeachment committee, chaired by Makashule Gana, remains legally permitted to continue its preparatory work unless and until the court grants Ramaphosa’s interdict.
ActionSA parliamentary leader Athol Trollip asserted that the President bears a constitutional responsibility to answer for the scandal. Trollip likened the current legal maneuvering to the stalling tactics of the former president, noting that Ramaphosa has inflicted reputational damage upon himself. He demanded clear explanations regarding the undisclosed foreign currency found stuffed in a couch, the exact amount involved, and the failure to open a proper case with the South African Police Service.
Trollip emphasized that a previous Constitutional Court ruling already declared it unlawful to halt the section 89 committee four years ago. “Parliament is there to protect the constitution, protect the presidency, and to protect parliament,” Trollip stated, adding that lawmakers are not there to protect the President’s reputation.
Meanwhile, ANC Secretary General Figula maintained that the President is fully within his rights to exhaust all available legal avenues.
Sethulego Matebesi, a political analyst at the University of the Free State, noted that the President’s legal recourse is not surprising, as it is a right protected by the Constitution for all citizens. Matebesi observed that the urgent application creates parallel legal hurdles, allowing the President to argue that Parliament should not proceed while the review is pending, despite the existing Constitutional judgment. He questioned whether the previous judgment applies strictly to the Phala Phala matter and suggested that Parliament needs to establish new rules to navigate future presidential impeachment scenarios.
Addressing the upcoming local government elections, Matebesi highlighted that the ongoing legal battles invite intense public scrutiny on both the President and the ANC. He predicted that opposition parties will leverage the situation to argue that the ruling party fails to respect the separation of powers and Constitutional Court judgments. Conversely, the ANC is expected to defend the President’s actions by asserting that every citizen, including the head of state, possesses the right to take decisions on legal review.
Matebesi concluded that while a democratic leader would ideally take citizens into confidence, the current political climate makes it unlikely for a sitting president to admit wrongdoing and step down, meaning these disputes must ultimately be resolved in a court of law.
