By Thapelo Molefe
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal team has rejected claims that the Constitutional Court’s earlier Phala Phala judgment effectively settled the issues at the heart of his bid to halt Parliament’s impeachment process, telling the Western Cape High Court the country’s highest court never ruled on the legality of the independent panel’s findings.
The High Court heard further argument on Thursday in Ramaphosa’s urgent application to stop the public hearings of Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee pending a review of the independent panel’s report that found sufficient evidence for an impeachment inquiry.
ALSO READ: Stols and Mackenzie granted R5,000 bail, van der Walt walks free
Advocate Wim Trengove SC, for Ramaphosa, argued that while the Constitutional Court referred the panel’s report to Parliament’s impeachment committee in May, it did not determine whether the panel had correctly applied the law.
“What is absolutely plain is that it did not purport to determine any of these issues before you,” Trengove said.
“It did not apply its mind to it and it made no determination of any of these issues.”
He said the Constitutional Court’s order simply implemented Parliament’s rules by referring the report to the impeachment committee and was silent on how the committee should proceed thereafter.
“The Constitutional Court order says nothing about the way in which the impeachment committee should deal with the report. Those are matters regulated by the rules and not by the Constitutional Court order.”
Trengove maintained that the independent panel applied the wrong legal test by assessing whether there was merely a prima facie case instead of determining whether there was sufficient evidence to justify an impeachment inquiry.
He also argued that the panel failed to consider whether there was evidence that Ramaphosa had acted intentionally or in bad faith in relation to allegations arising from the Phala Phala matter.
Counsel for the Economic Freedom Fighters, Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, disputed that argument, saying the Constitutional Court had already been presented with Ramaphosa’s complaints about the panel’s interpretation of the “sufficient evidence” test.
“The Constitutional Court heard everything you’ve heard,” Mpofu told the court.
He argued that despite those submissions, the Constitutional Court still directed that the matter proceed to Parliament’s impeachment committee.
“Our submission is that the order you are being asked to make would offend exactly against that paragraph,” Mpofu said.
ALSO READ: State withdraws charges against businessman Etienne van der Walt in R14.9m “bogus raid” case
Mpofu further argued that the court should balance any prejudice claimed by Ramaphosa against the public interest in holding the President accountable.
“The task of the judges is to take both what Mr Trengove says and what I say… and then say which of those two harms,” he said.
In reply, Trengove insisted the Constitutional Court had deliberately left the review issues undecided.
“It might have been matters argued before the court, but the court chose not to decide those issues,” he said.
The three-judge bench reserved judgment after concluding two days of argument, with a ruling expected by the end of next week.
