The African Transformation Movement (ATM) has expressed its disappointment at the Constitutional Court’s refusal to hear the party’s appeal against the Western Cape High Court ruling which has temporarily stalled the impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
ATM parliamentary leader Vuyolwethu Zungula said it was disappointing as the legal principles that gave rise to the interdict will not be tested on its constitutionality.
“The legal principles will become precedents for future impeachment interdicts in the absence of a constitutional determination. The Western Cape High Court will only hear the matter of the review and not the legality of the interdict. The interdict has far-reaching consequences, as it has already halted Parliament proceedings indefinitely,” said Zungula.
The issue revolves around the theft of US dollars from Ramaphosa's Phala Phala farm in 2020 and the subsequent investigation into the matter. A Section 89 independent panel report found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated his oath of office and the Constitution regarding the Phala Phala farm theft scandal.
While the National Assembly in 2022 voted against adopting the report, the matter was taken to the Constitutional Court by the EFF and ATM. The Concourt ruled earlier this year that the National Assembly's decision not to adopt the report was irrational and directed that an inquiry be set up by Parliament to consider the matter.
After the impeachment committee was established, Ramaphosa sought to interdict it from hearing evidence. In addition, Ramaphosa is challenging the independent panel report's findings in a review case.
Last month, the Western Cape High Court ruled in favour of Ramaphosa and interdicted the committee from proceeding with public hearings pending the outcome of the president's review application
The review is expected to be heard by the Western Cape High Court in September.
In response to the interdict ruling, the ATM approached the Constitutional Court to seek clarity on the high court's ruling.
In his founding affidavit, Zungula said that the High Court order was “irredeemably vague,” with neither of the judgments explaining what a public impeachment hearing is.
“The committee is now left to discern for itself what it may or may not do. The vagueness of the majority order offends the rule of law.”
Dismissing the application on Wednesday, the Constitutional Court said the applicant had failed to make a case. It also refused an application by other opposition parties to file their replying affidavits for a direct appeal. The ConCourt concluded that it was not in the interest of justice to hear the matter at this stage, given the imminent determination of the review matter—an outcome that it said will render the interim interdict moot.
“Consequently, the appeal is refused,” read the court's order.
Impeachment Committee chairperson Makashule Gana said his committee will continue with its preparatory work as this was not prohibited by the interdict granted by the Western Cape High Court.
“We are going to finalise the committee’s terms of reference and also receive an update on the appointment of the evidence leader at our next meeting.”
willem.phungula@nationalmg.co.za