Ramaphosa tells court impeachment would cause irreparable harm as review bid proceeds

President Cyril Ramaphosa told the Western Cape High Court he would suffer irreparable harm if Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment proceedings against him continue before his review application is heard.

Urgent review bid heard in Western Cape High Court

Advocate Wim Trengove SC appeared for the president on Wednesday before judges André le Grange, Matthew Francis, and Diane Davis. Ramaphosa has brought an urgent application seeking to halt the Section 89 impeachment process pending a review of the independent panel’s report.

The Constitutional Court ruled in May that the Section 89 panel’s report on the Phala Phala matter should be returned to Parliament, allowing an impeachment process to proceed. Ramaphosa has taken that panel report on review; the review hearing is set for 2 to 4 September.

Dispute over how the panel weighed evidence

Trengove told the court the panel failed to consider the full scope of the president’s responses before concluding there was a case to answer. He said the panel should have asked whether there was sufficient evidence for the “punitive step” of a public inquiry, not merely whether a prima facie case existed.

“Prima facie case means, if you take this evidence at face value, does it make a case against the president? Sufficient evidence requires something more: that there is enough evidence for the punitive step of a public inquiry.”

Judge le Grange responded that the panel was limited to affidavits, had to deliver a report within 30 days and could not call witnesses or cross-examine, and that the panel had identified gaps the president needed to answer.

“The tools available to the panel were: they had to deliver a report within 30 days, couldn’t call witnesses to testify, couldn’t cross-examine, and could only work on affidavits, which were given to the panel, including the answers by the president. Viewing that, they came to a conclusion that there is a certain gap that the president needs to answer. What’s wrong with that?”

Harm and humiliation versus possible exoneration

Trengove argued the president would suffer public humiliation and irreparable reputational harm if the impeachment proceedings proceed and the review later finds the report invalid.

“Very significant harm will be done to the president if the hearing goes ahead and it is ultimately found that the report was invalid. That harm is irrefutable. You can never undo the reputational harm done by an impeachment enquiry.”

Judge Francis observed the process could alternatively lead to exoneration. He said: “Why would that be a humiliation? It could be an exoneration; it could come out better than it is now.”

Committee says review opportunity has passed

Representing the impeachment committee chair, William Mokhare SC said the president had “missed the boat” to review the report and that the committee must continue its work independently. Mokhare told the court the committee had not yet gathered evidence, had not made up its mind on the president’s guilt, and did not have evidentiary material to form such a view.

Mokhare said the committee understands the Constitutional Court judgment requires the Speaker to give effect to the referral of the independent panel’s report to the impeachment committee and that the committee’s chairperson is responsible for ensuring fair and transparent proceedings and protecting witnesses and the president.

Background of the panel report

In November 2022 an independent panel appointed by then-National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula and led by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo found there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated parts of the constitution and PRECCA in relation to a burglary at his Phala Phala farm in February 2020.

The president’s urgent review application argues that proceeding with Section 89 processes before the court reviews the panel report would cause irreparable harm; opposing papers, including from the African Transformation Movement, say the president will not suffer such harm if the committee proceeds.

The matter was argued before the Western Cape High Court on Wednesday and the court heard submissions from both sides on urgency, the scope of the panel’s duties and the balance between reputational harm and Parliament’s constitutional responsibilities.