By Simon Nare
President Cyril Ramaphosa has secured an important legal victory in his bid to stave off impeachment, but Friday’s Western Cape High Court ruling is likely to delay rather than end Parliament’s efforts to hold him accountable over the Phala Phala scandal.
In a split judgment, the full bench granted Ramaphosa an interim interdict preventing Parliament’s impeachment committee from proceeding with public hearings until his application to review and set aside the Independent Panel report is heard from September 2 to 4.
The ruling marks a significant procedural win for the president, buying him valuable time and shielding him, for now, from the political spectacle of public impeachment hearings.
However, it does not determine whether the Independent Panel report is lawful, nor does it absolve him of the allegations arising from the theft of foreign currency at his Phala Phala game farm.
Judge Mathew Francis, with Judge André le Grange concurring, held that Ramaphosa had met the legal threshold for an interim interdict.
Judge Diane Davis dissented.
The majority found that allowing the impeachment hearings to proceed before the review application was decided would cause irreparable harm to the president.
“Public humiliation and reputational damage are the very substance of the harm, not merely incidental consequences. No subsequent declaration of invalidity can restore the president’s dignity or erase the public spectacle of an impeachment enquiry,” the judges said.
The court accepted that Parliament has a constitutional duty to hold the president accountable but emphasised that it must do so through lawful processes.
“A temporary stay ensures that if the report is unlawful, as argued by the president, the enquiry would not occur at all, and if it is lawful, then it will proceed. This is precisely the protective role courts must play as guardians of the Constitution.”
The judgment effectively freezes the committee’s public hearings while the court determines the legality of the Independent Panel report that recommended Ramaphosa answer allegations relating to Phala Phala.
A legal victory, not a political acquittal
The ruling should not be mistaken for a finding on Ramaphosa’s conduct.
The court considered only whether the impeachment hearings should be paused pending the judicial review. The substantive question—whether the Independent Panel report was lawfully compiled and whether Parliament may rely on it—remains unresolved.
Should Ramaphosa fail in the review application, the impeachment committee could resume its work with renewed legal certainty.
For the president, the judgment removes the immediate political pressure of testifying before a parliamentary committee while simultaneously preparing for a court battle over the panel’s findings.
Parliament’s work delayed
The decision also places Parliament in an awkward constitutional position.
Impeachment Committee chairperson Makashule Gana acknowledged that the committee’s work had effectively been placed on hold, although he suggested some preparatory work may continue while members study the judgment.
National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza similarly indicated that Parliament would examine the ruling to determine its implications for the impeachment process.
The court’s order means Parliament must wait until the review proceedings have run their course before continuing with the public phase of the inquiry.
Questions over judicial consistency
Perhaps the most politically significant response came from African Transformation Movement parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula, whose party opposed Ramaphosa’s application.
Zungula argued that the judgment appeared inconsistent with the court’s earlier refusal to halt the impeachment proceedings against former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane.
He noted that the same court had previously relied on the principle of separation of powers to decline judicial intervention in parliamentary accountability processes.
“We have this court contradicting itself on a similar case. It is unprecedented and something that should worry every citizen because it effectively means that any president facing accountability can run to court to stop or delay the process,” Zungula said.
His criticism raises broader constitutional questions about when courts should intervene in parliamentary proceedings and whether different standards are being applied in different impeachment matters.
The road ahead
The real contest now shifts from Parliament back to the courts.
When the review application is heard in September, the court will have to determine whether the Independent Panel report—which found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have committed serious violations warranting impeachment—was lawfully produced.
If the report survives judicial scrutiny, Parliament’s impeachment process is likely to resume.
If it is set aside, the legal basis for the current impeachment proceedings could collapse, forcing Parliament to reconsider how, or whether, to proceed.
For now, Ramaphosa has won an important procedural battle.
Whether it ultimately changes the political and legal trajectory of the Phala Phala saga will depend on the outcome of the September review—a case that could shape not only the president’s future, but also the relationship between the courts and Parliament in impeachment proceedings.
INSIDE POLITICS
