Parliament’s impeachment committee has decided to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s bid to halt the impeachment proceedings over Phala Phala.
Ramaphosa asked the Western Cape High Court for an urgent interdict after he challenged the validity of the Section 89 Independent Panel Report on the theft of $580 000 from his Phala Phala farm.
Impeachment Committee chairperson Makashule Gana said there appeared to be consensus among members that Ramaphosa’s interdict application should be opposed.
“The prevailing view from parties represented on the committee is that the committee should oppose the president’s urgent interdict application.”
Gana said there was no need for a vote because all committee members supported opposing the application.
“As proposed, we will also petition the Speaker [Thoko Dikiza] to oppose this application. If the Speaker decides not to oppose it, then as chairperson of the committee and the second respondent in the matter, I will represent the committee in opposing the application.”
On 12 June, Ramaphosa served Parliament with an urgent application seeking to stop the Speaker of the National Assembly and the chairperson of the impeachment committee from commencing an impeachment inquiry pending the outcome of his review application.
The move follows the Constitutional Court judgment that sent the Phala Phala matter back to Parliament, paving the way for an impeachment process to proceed.
Committee senior legal adviser Susan Isaacs told members: “The president seeks to bring an urgent application before the Western Cape High Court to interdict the Speaker and the chairperson of the impeachment committee from commencing an impeachment inquiry,” she said.
Isaacs said Ramaphosa argued that the impeachment process should be suspended pending the determination of his review application against the Phala Phala report.
The committee sought an external legal opinion on how it should respond to the interdict application.
Advocate William Mokhare, providing independent legal advice, said the committee had two options: oppose the urgent application or file an explanatory affidavit setting out its understanding of its constitutional obligations.
“The first option is more appropriate because it enables the committee to assert what it understands to be its duties and obligations arising from the Constitutional Court judgment.
“Paragraph seven of the Constitutional Court order specifically states that the impeachment committee should ensure that the report of the independent panel is given effect to and that can only occur through the impeachment process. This committee will not be acting improperly if it opposes the interdict application purely on legal grounds and asserts the duties mandated by the Constitutional Court,” Mokhare said.
He added that a court would be unlikely to halt the process if it was satisfied that Ramaphosa would receive a fair hearing.
MK Party MP John Hlophe said a lower court could not suspend a Constitutional Court order. “Our position as the MK Party is that the committee has been cited and dragged to court and there is no option but to oppose the interdict application. I am convinced that the president stands no chance in law. We must oppose the application.”
EFF leader Julius Malema said the Constitutional Court had pronounced on the matter. “Opposing the interdict does not necessarily mean the president is guilty of anything. We are simply saying there is nothing in law that allows the president to stop the process and that the High Court has no jurisdiction over a matter that the Constitutional Court has ruled on,” he said.
ActionSA MP Athol Trollip said: “The Constitutional Court judgment is not appealable and a lower court cannot rescind a Constitutional Court judgment,” he said.
DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach said: We lobby the Speaker very vigorously to oppose this application because the work of the committee must proceed. Until there is an interdict preventing us from going ahead, we must go ahead,” she said.