CAPE TOWN — President Cyril Ramaphosa has successfully halted Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment inquiry after the Western Cape High Court granted him an interim interdict, a landmark legal maneuver that analysts say echoes the constitutional battles of the Jacob Zuma era.
The High Court’s judgment has sparked immediate and widespread reactions from various political parties, many of whom have labeled the ruling as unprecedented. Critics argue that the lower court’s decision undermines the Constitutional Court’s ruling from May. However, political analyst Prof. Lesiba Teffo suggests the legal reality is far more nuanced. According to Prof. Teffo, the Constitutional Court’s earlier guidance indicated that the impeachment process could continue in the interim unless explicitly set aside by a review. This technicality has created a complex legal intersection where South Africa’s constitutional jurisprudence is being actively tested and redefined.
Prof. Teffo drew direct parallels between the current political climate and the past, noting that both President Ramaphosa and his predecessor, Jacob Zuma, have uniquely challenged and contributed to the nation’s constitutional jurisprudence. He emphasized that the current situation was never fully anticipated, forcing the legal framework to adapt to unforeseen political realities.
Adding to the legal complexity, the Constitutional Court’s previous judgment was a split decision. In the wake of the latest High Court ruling, the MK party has indicated it is contemplating filing an urgent appeal. Prof. Teffo confirmed that the party has the legal standing to pursue this route, likening the potential move to a “stalling strategy” that was previously perfected in South African politics during Zuma’s tenure.
Despite the ongoing legal maneuvering, Prof. Teffo described the push to remove the President via the impeachment process as an “exercise in futility.” He argued that it is highly unlikely Ramaphosa would make himself available to a 31-member panel to be interrogated about the Phala Phala saga.
According to the political analyst, Ramaphosa has privately conceded to friends and immediate colleagues that he made a mistake regarding the matter and initially expressed a desire to step down. However, he was reportedly persuaded to remain in office. Prof. Teffo predicts that the President will refuse to resign at the instigation of opposition parties or political detractors. Instead, Ramaphosa is expected to “play the long game,” maintaining his position until the ANC’s elective conference, at which point he can pass the baton and step down on his own terms.
As legal teams assess their next steps and potential appeals, the intersection of law and high-stakes politics ensures that the boundaries of South Africa’s constitutional democracy will remain under intense scrutiny in the coming months.
