President Cyril Ramaphosa and the ANC welcomed the Western Cape High Court’s decision to halt the proceedings of the Impeachment Committee pending the review application to the disappointment of the opposition parties.
Delivering the judgment on Friday, Judge André le Grange said the court carefully considered the weighty arguments advanced by the parties in the limited time available in the urgent application.
“Pending the determination by this court of the applicant’s review, the first and second respondents are interdicted from proceeding with public impeachment hearings in terms of the National Assembly rules,” he said.
The Presidency said Ramaphosa noted the granting of the urgent application to temporarily interdict and pause Section 89 impeachment proceedings by Parliament.
“The president reaffirms his respect for judicial independence and separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. The president will continue to cooperate with and abide by processes of accountability,” spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said.
The ANC said the judgment affirmed that every person, including Ramaphosa, was entitled to approach the courts to protect their constitutional rights and ensure that public processes are lawful, rational, and procedurally fair.
“Exercising this right cannot legitimately be characterised as evading accountability,” said the party in a statement.
Impeachment Committee Chairperson Makashule Gana said he noted that the interdict was against the public hearings pending the review application.
Gana said the committee will study the full judgment to see which aspects of the work can proceed.
“We now await the full judgment, which we will study and will then be able to give further updates in terms of the work that the committee still has to do because, from what I heard, it is only the public hearings that have been interdicted,” he added.
EFF Chief Whip Nontando Nolutshungu said they were shocked but were not surprised because there was a pattern as they were dealing with someone who avoids accountability.
“We are going to study the judgment and see how we then move forward,” Nolutshungu said.
MK Party’s Andile Mngxitama said they were disappointed, but the judgment was not unexpected.
“The judiciary has consistently protected Mr Ramaphosa. We all know about his R1 billion, which is undisclosed from his donors. Now, that theme continues as we see today,” Mngxitama said.
He said Ramaphosa had made a very silly argument that his reputation would be harmed by appearing before the Impeachment Committee.
“This is a delaying tactic, and it’s highly disappointing that the judges would accept the argument that his reputation would be negatively affected and therefore grant him his request for a stay of this matter,” said Mngxitama.
DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis said the judgment did not decide whether the allegations arising from Phala Phala were true, nor did it clear Ramaphosa of wrongdoing.
“It determines the order in which the judicial and parliamentary processes must unfold,” Hill-Lewis said.
He also said while Ramaphosa was entitled to exercise his legal rights, South Africans were entitled to answers and to know that the same standards of accountability apply to every person who holds public office.
“The review application must therefore be resolved as urgently as possible. The DA calls on expedited court dates to be provided for this matter of national importance,” he said, adding that Parliament should continue with every preparatory step permitted by the court’s order.
Rise Mzansi spokesperson Mabine Seabe said that, as the party of the rule of law, they will abide by the judgment and study it to get a full sense of the court’s wisdom in granting the temporary interdict.
“We will study that judgment and be able to give the people of South Africa a full view of what we believe must be the next steps, but ultimately, our Constitution is a living document, and of course, the judges would have applied their minds in terms of the constitutional mechanisms involved here,” Seabe said.
BOSA spokesperson Graham Charters said Parliament should immediately obtain legal advice and lodge an urgent appeal against the ruling, if there were reasonable prospects of success.
“Parliament certainly cannot afford to become complicit in allowing constitutional accountability to be buried beneath endless legal processes,” Charters said.
mayibongwe.maqhina@inl.co.za
