CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — In a major escalation of the Ramaphosa impeachment saga, a 31-member parliamentary committee has filed papers at the Constitutional Court to directly appeal a Western Cape High Court ruling that granted the president an interim interdict. The High Court recently halted the committee’s proceedings after President Cyril Ramaphosa argued he would suffer irreparable harm if the legislative body continued its work while he pursues a review of an independent panel report. That panel previously found that the president may have violated the Constitution in relation to the 2020 theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala farm.
African Transformation Movement (ATM) parliamentary leader and committee member Vuyo Zungula outlined the core legal arguments driving the appeal, asserting that the High Court overstepped its constitutional boundaries. According to Zungula, the court failed to apply the correct legal test and unjustly constrained Parliament’s legally obligated duties—specifically those outlined in Sections 42(3) and 89 of the Constitution—without properly assessing the actual prospects of success regarding the President’s future review application.
“The majority judgment in Cape Town did not have any commentary, did not have any peek as to how the success of that review will actually be,” Zungula explained. He emphasized that instructing the impeachment committee to suspend public hearings violates the separation of powers doctrine. To support this, Zungula referenced established Constitutional Court jurisprudence—noted in the committee’s proceedings as the “Gandler” matter—which dictates how courts should constrain themselves when adjudicating matters pertaining to Parliament’s independent functions.
The decision to escalate the matter to the Constitutional Court was reached through a formal committee vote. Zungula noted that the move received near-unanimous support, with the notable exception of the African National Congress (ANC) and allied parties, specifically the Patriotic Alliance (PA) and Al Jama-ah. Zungula sharply criticized the opposing parties, accusing the former ruling party and its allies of attempting to shield the president from a transparent, evidence-based process that would safeguard the sanctity of both the presidential office and the parliamentary institution.
The ATM has formally requested an urgent hearing, asking the Constitutional Court to entertain the matter between August 10 and August 14. The goal is to secure a judgment before September to prevent the impairment of parliamentary duties by what the committee views as an unconstitutional and misguided interdict. Meanwhile, the Office of the Chief Justice has set a deadline of August 5 for any parties wishing to oppose the application to formally indicate their intentions, after which official hearing timelines will be established.
Reaffirming the committee’s commitment to executive accountability, Zungula stressed that the head of state must not be permitted to use “legal gymnastics” or loopholes to evade scrutiny. “We want the truth, we want answers, we want evidence, and let the evidence clear the president,” Zungula stated, insisting that no individual, regardless of their powerful office, should be immune to the constitutional mandate of accountability.
