CAPE TOWN — The Western Cape High Court has granted an urgent interdict halting the President Cyril Ramaphosa impeachment process, temporarily stopping Parliament’s Impeachment Committee from continuing its public proceedings. In response, African Transformation Movement (ATM) representative and Member of Parliament Vuyo Zungula has vowed to study the split judgment and continue pushing for accountability regarding the Section 89 Independent Panel report.
President Ramaphosa approached the court to halt the impeachment proceedings pending his application to review the Section 89 Independent Panel report, which previously found that he had a case to answer concerning allegations related to his Phala Phala farm. While legal analysts note that this urgent interim interdict cannot be appealed, the full reasons for the three-way split judgment are still pending.
Speaking from the steps of the court, Vuyo Zungula, who is a respondent in both the interim interdict and the substantive review application scheduled for early September, emphasized the need to carefully analyze the ruling. “We are going to read the judgment to find out exactly what they have stopped,” Zungula stated. He questioned whether the interdict halts the entire process or merely the public hearings, noting that administrative work—such as nominating evidence leaders and finalizing terms of reference—may still proceed.
Despite the legal setback, Zungula confirmed that the ATM would continue submitting its nominations for the committee, with expectations to agree on the terms of reference by next Wednesday. He stressed that the core issue remains the misconduct affirmed by the independent panel of experts, and failing to seek the truth would be a disservice to South Africans.
Addressing the substantive review, Zungula outlined the ATM’s core legal argument: the President cannot set aside the report merely because an inquiry has not yet determined guilt. “The only thing that the independent panel found is that there is enough evidence that suggests an inquiry must be held,” he explained. Zungula firmly rejected claims that the panel misdirected itself, pointing out that the panel complied with rules drafted in accordance with a December 2017 Constitutional Court order. He noted that the President’s side, including his head of security, was given full opportunity to respond and provide evidence before the panel concluded there was a case to answer.
When questioned about the President’s argument that he had no alternative remedy because Parliament refused to engage on his proposed timeline, Zungula was unequivocal. “Parliament must do its work and hold whoever is in the executive accountable,” he asserted, adding that the legislative body cannot negotiate timelines or methods of accountability with the President.
Highlighting arguments previously made by legal representative Anton Katz on his behalf, Zungula warned of the broader political consequences of this delay. Pushing the review application to September, with a judgment potentially arriving months later, could derail the parliamentary calendar entirely. This would push any meaningful momentum into 2027, a contentious year coinciding with local government elections and the African National Congress (ANC) elective conference, which could alter the country’s body politic.
Zungula concluded by expressing deep concern over the ruling, suggesting it undermines Parliament’s constitutional obligation to represent the people. “This judgment is something that South Africans should be really worried about,” he said, questioning whether the court made political considerations favoring the President over the constitutional provision of accountability and the public’s right to answers.
