CAPE TOWN — President Cyril Ramaphosa’s impeachment process has been temporarily halted by the Western Cape High Court, which granted an interim interdict preventing Parliament’s Impeachment Committee from continuing with public proceedings. The Democratic Alliance (DA) has characterized the court’s split decision as a predictable development, asserting that the legislative body can still advance critical administrative work while the underlying review of the Section 89 Independent Panel report remains pending.
The legal intervention stems from President Ramaphosa’s application to halt the impeachment process. The President’s legal team argued that proceeding with public impeachment hearings would cause him undue and unfair prejudice while the Section 89 Independent Panel report—which found he had a case to answer regarding the theft of foreign currency on his Phala Phala farm—remains under judicial review. Ramaphosa’s camp contends that if the review court ultimately finds the panel’s report unconstitutional and sets it aside, the public impeachment proceedings would have already caused irreversible reputational damage.
Democratic Alliance Chief Whip Glynnis Breytenbach addressed the ruling, noting that the bench delivered a split decision comprising three separate judgments. While the first judgment did not meet the benchmark for the interdict, the subsequent two did. Breytenbach emphasized the need to carefully study the written reasoning once the judgments are officially available, given the decision’s profound implications for the separation of powers.
Despite the halt on public proceedings, Breytenbach clarified that the Impeachment Committee is not entirely paralyzed. She noted that the committee can still conduct administrative work, including appointing evidence leaders, finalizing terms of reference, and settling witness lists. She also highlighted that the presiding judge specifically interdicted *public* hearings, leaving open the procedural possibility of holding in-camera sessions.
Addressing the President’s claims of potential prejudice, Breytenbach described the situation as a “bizarre set of circumstances” where a head of state must approach the courts to prevent Parliament from executing its constitutional duties simply to avoid public embarrassment. She argued that any prejudice faced is of the President’s own making, pointedly questioning the circumstances that led to the Phala Phala controversy by asking, “Who keeps their money in their couch?”
The review application regarding the Section 89 Independent Panel’s findings is scheduled to be heard in early September on an urgent basis, with a judgment expected to follow soon thereafter. Breytenbach confirmed that the DA caucus will download and analyze the court’s full reasoning before engaging with other political parties to plot a definitive legislative way forward.
Legal observers note that interim interdicts are generally final in their nature and are not subject to appeal, distinguishing them from final interdict applications. This legal reality effectively brings the public impeachment proceedings to a standstill for now, shifting the focus entirely to the upcoming September review court hearing to determine the validity of the underlying panel report.
