Arguments over the legal threshold for impeaching President Cyril Ramaphosa dominated the second day of proceedings in the Western Cape High Court, where his legal team argued that Parliament's Section 89 inquiry should not proceed until the courts have decided whether an independent panel's report was legally sound.
Advocate Wim Trengove, representing Ramaphosa, argued that the independent panel applied the wrong legal standard when it found prima facie evidence of serious misconduct.
He told the court that the panel was required to make more than a mechanical finding, insisting that it should have conducted what he described as a "qualitative assessment of all the available evidence" before recommending that Parliament proceed with an impeachment inquiry."What is important is to make a qualitative assessment that says I take into account everything. Taking all of that into account, is there sufficient evidence to put the president on trial?" Trengove submitted.
He argued that this was particularly important because some of the allegations required proof of bad faith.Trengove specifically challenged the panel's findings on the "other paid work" allegation and the reporting obligations under Section 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA), saying the panel failed to establish whether the President acted with the necessary intention before concluding that there was a case to answer.
Trengove also rejected the argument that the Constitutional Court's May 2026 judgment required Parliament to immediately continue with the impeachment process."The court is silent about it because the rules then take over. There is nothing in the court order to suggest anything about what should happen after the referral to the committee," he argued.
Another central issue was what the President's legal team described as the "buffer" contained in National Assembly Rule 129.Trengove argued that the rule was deliberately created to protect a sitting President from an impeachment inquiry based on unfounded allegations.He submitted that the President had a statutory right to that protection before facing the reputational damage and public scrutiny associated with formal impeachment proceedings.
Counsel for the respondents, including the African Transformation Movement (ATM), argued that the public interest lay in allowing Parliament to continue with the inquiry.They maintained that once an independent panel had found prima facie evidence of serious misconduct, the constitutional process should continue unless the report was later set aside by a court.
Referring to the Constitutional Court's approach, counsel argued, "Once the Rubicon of prima facie sufficient evidence has been crossed, the process must proceed until and unless it is set aside".
The respondents also argued that the balance of convenience favoured the public rather than the President.During the hearing, Justice Diane Davis noted that "Section 89 to hold the president accountable, that's really for the people of South Africa. So, they must also be factored into the issue of harm."
The court also heard arguments on the procedural history of the matter.Counsel explained that the President's challenge to the panel's report became moot after the National Assembly voted against establishing an impeachment committee in 2022.The matter was revived only after the Constitutional Court referred the report back to Parliament in May this year.
Respondents further argued that the President's application was procedurally incompetent because the impeachment process had already begun.One advocate told the court, "Once the horse has left the stable, you can't stop the horse from leaving the stable."
Closing arguments also returned to the balance between accountability and fairness.While the President's legal team argued that constitutional safeguards must be respected before Parliament proceeds, respondents maintained that delaying the inquiry would undermine Section 89's purpose of ensuring executive accountability.
After hearing submissions from all parties, the Western Cape High Court reserved judgment.The court thanked counsel for their arguments and said it aims to hand down its ruling by the end of next week.