Ramaphosa asks High Court to pause impeachment committee until Phala Phala review is heard

President Cyril Ramaphosa asked a full bench of the Western Cape High Court to interdict the National Assembly’s impeachment committee from proceeding with its inquiry into the Phala Phala matter until a review of the independent panel report is heard.

High Court hearing packed as lawyers make submissions

The matter was heard on Wednesday morning before Judges André le Grange, Matthew Francis and Diane Davis. Lawyers for the president, several political parties and the impeachment committee made oral arguments in the urgent interdict application.

Ramaphosa seeks an order barring the committee from continuing until the review of the Section 89 panel report is heard, a review that is expected to be heard in September.

President’s argument: humiliation and process concerns

Advocate Wim Trengove SC opened for the president, saying Ramaphosa has given his account of what happened on the farm to certain bodies, and in affidavits, and that those bodies have been addressed in those processes. Trengove said the president is not avoiding giving his version but argued it would be humiliating for him to appear before the committee before his review application is heard.

Trengove described the panel’s finding of a prima facie case as a mechanical exercise and said the panel should have had regard to the president’s evidence when deciding whether to send the matter to a public inquiry.

Judges probe the core questions

Judge Francis pressed whether the committee might instead provide an opportunity for exoneration rather than humiliation. Judge le Grange asked whether the president expected his evidence to carry greater weight than what he termed hearsay in the record. Trengove said he was not arguing that the president’s evidence should outweigh incriminating material, but that the panel should have considered the president’s account.

Committee and party lawyers oppose the interdict

Advocate William Mokhare SC, representing impeachment committee chairperson Makashule Gana, said the committee’s procedures afford protection to the president and warned that granting the interdict could create a precedent for delay in future impeachment proceedings.

Advocate Anton Katz, for the African Transformation Movement and its leader Vuyo Zungula, argued that Ramaphosa had not shown he met the threshold for ordinary interdict relief and that the president was attempting to “traverse the lane of another organ of State.” Katz said the application was a disturbance of an ongoing process and that the president had not established irreparable harm. Katz told the court,

“We suggest that if you stay in your lane, then you won’t grant the interdict.”

Advocate Dali Mpofu, for the Economic Freedom Fighters, submitted that the High Court should not override the Constitutional Court and that any variation should be sought at the apex court.

What happens next

Proceedings were scheduled to resume at 10am on Thursday.

According to IOL, IOL is one of South Africa’s leading news and information websites bringing millions of readers breaking news and updates on politics and other topics.