By Simon Nare
President Cyril Ramaphosa has filed an urgent court application to halt Parliament’s impeachment committee from proceeding with its inquiry into whether he breached the Constitution in his handling of the alleged theft of foreign currency at his Phala Phala farm, arguing that the process would undermine ongoing judicial review proceedings.
In papers filed in the Western Cape High Court on Friday, Ramaphosa cited National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, committee chairperson Makashule Gana and others as respondents.
He argues that if the committee reaches findings before the review is finalised, he will be left without effective legal redress.
Other respondents include the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM), along with its parliamentary leader Vuyolwethu Zungula.
“Even if only part of the impeachment enquiry is undertaken before the review process is determined, substantial harm will already have been done,” Ramaphosa said in the affidavit.
He contends the matter is urgent because allowing the proceedings to continue would render any later review largely ineffective.
“In those circumstances, the review court will be confronted with a situation in which consequences flowing from the report have already occurred before the validity of the report has been determined. The effectiveness of the review proceedings will have been materially undermined,” he said.
Ramaphosa has launched a judicial review of the Independent Panel’s findings, arguing that it applied the wrong legal standard and failed to present sufficient evidence to justify impeachment proceedings.
The Section 89 committee was established after the Constitutional Court ruled that the National Assembly had failed to follow proper procedure in dealing with allegations arising from the Phala Phala matter.
Meanwhile, the National Assembly Rules Committee met on Wednesday, chaired by the Speaker, to consider guidelines governing the Section 89 process.
Didiza confirmed that Ramaphosa will appear before the committee to account for his conduct.
After submissions from MPs, Didiza referred the draft rules back to a subcommittee for further clarification after lawmakers failed to agree on key provisions.
MPs were divided over whether members of the Section 89 committee must meet a “fit and proper” requirement, and whether Ramaphosa should be held indirectly accountable for actions of officials under his authority.
INSIDE POLITICS
