CAPE TOWN, South Africa — A recent Western Cape High Court ruling has temporarily halted the impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa, sparking widespread debate over the future of parliamentary accountability. While the decision does not derail the proceedings entirely, legal experts warn that the interim interdict will introduce significant delays as the Section 89 committee report undergoes judicial review.
Dr. Llewelyn Curlewis, a legal expert from the University of Pretoria, noted that while the ruling may feel like a delaying tactic to the public, it serves a specific legal purpose. The full bench of the court, in a 2-to-1 split decision, determined that the president’s integrity must be protected pending the possible review of the Section 89 committee’s report, which had previously suggested he be investigated for possible impeachment.
According to Dr. Curlewis, the process now faces a delay rather than a collapse. However, this delay is expected to extend well beyond the initial two to three weeks. He cautioned that the losing party in the upcoming review application is highly likely to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) and potentially the Constitutional Court. Navigating leave to appeal applications and waiting for judgments in superior courts could take weeks or months, pushing any substantive committee action to mid-next year or later.
A key point of contention is whether the impeachment committee can continue administrative groundwork, such as finalizing terms of reference or appointing an evidence leader, while the review is pending. Dr. Curlewis explained that the court order is open to two interpretations. The first allows administrative progress but strictly prohibits the president from appearing before the committee until the review is finalized. The second, stricter interpretation—which he anticipates the ANC will favor—mandates a complete halt to all proceedings until the review application is resolved. Parliament must comply with the court order to avoid being held in contempt of court.
Despite the procedural hurdles, the ruling emphasized the supremacy of the rule of law. Judge Andre Lrange, concurring with the majority, highlighted that the legal framework should not force a choice between protecting the president’s interests and fulfilling parliament’s accountability function. Instead, any accountability measures must strictly follow a lawful process.
The decision has also drawn comparisons to past impeachment proceedings. ATM’s MP Zongula recently pointed out that previous attempts to interdict the impeachment proceedings of a former Public Protector were unsuccessful on two occasions. Addressing this, Dr. Curlewis clarified that each case must be evaluated on its own merits, particularly because the current ruling is an interim interdict, not a final relief judgment. Judges are obligated to consider the specific facts at hand, even if it means deviating from past precedents.
The prolonged timeline raises concerns about the ultimate viability of the impeachment process. Dr. Curlewis agreed with assessments that if the delays stretch into December of next year—coinciding with the African National Congress’s leadership election—the entire parliamentary exercise could be rendered moot. He suggested this extended timeline might have been a strategic consideration for those who introduced the interdict.
Furthermore, the ruling places external stakeholders on high alert. Institutions such as the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) and the South African Revenue Service (SARS), which previously provided expertise that largely exonerated the president, are expected to scrutinize the outcome closely. Dr. Curlewis warned that public perception regarding the handling of foreign currency transgressions will be heavily weighed. If the president is perceived to have bypassed consequences that would apply to ordinary citizens, it could severely impact institutional credibility.
Ultimately, legal experts stress that surviving the parliamentary impeachment process does not grant blanket immunity. Should evidence emerge of a statutory transgression, President Ramaphosa could still face legal implications and potential arraignment before a court, even after his term in office concludes. For now, however, the impeachment process remains in a state of legal suspension, awaiting the next phase of judicial review.
