By Simon Nare
President Cyril Ramaphosa has filed papers in the Constitutional Court opposing an application by political parties and Parliament’s Impeachment Committee for direct access to appeal a Western Cape High Court ruling related to the Phala Phala matter.
The committee is seeking to overturn a judgment that partially interdicted its impeachment proceedings against the president, although preparatory work has continued.
The Constitutional Court had given interested parties, including cited political parties, until Wednesday to file papers if they wished to join the application.
ALSO READ: Ramsamy alleges Johnson and Perumal tried to “groom” her into compliant prosecutor
In his filing, Ramaphosa argues that the Constitutional Court should refuse direct access because the applicants are bypassing the established judicial process.
He contends that the appeal lacks merit and should instead follow the ordinary legal route through the lower courts.
The president submitted that the court must consider several factors when deciding whether granting direct access is in the interests of justice, including:
- Whether factual disputes are better resolved by lower courts;
- Whether the order under appeal is interim in nature;
- Whether a Constitutional Court ruling would determine the remainder of the litigation or provide guidance to the lower courts; and
- The applicants’ prospects of success.
“The order under appeal comes from motion proceedings. The first consideration therefore does not arise. The second consideration does not assist the applicants. A decision of this court does not determine the review proceedings before the High Court,” Ramaphosa states in the court papers.
He further argues that the applicants themselves acknowledge that a Constitutional Court ruling would not guide the pending judicial review in the Western Cape High Court.
“The Part B court will certainly not do so. It is not seized with the interdict. It will only determine whether the president’s review has merit. The chair’s application says the same. On the applicants’ own version, therefore, a decision of this court neither determines the rest of the litigation nor provides guidance.
“This consideration weighs against the applicants. This court would hear these issues without the views of the Supreme Court of Appeal and without the views of the High Court as a court of first instance on some of them,” Ramaphosa argues.
He also rejects any suggestion that the Constitutional Court should intervene simply because the applicants claim lower courts misapplied existing legal principles.
ALSO READ: Lamola calls for continent-wide migration debate rather than focus on SA
“The principles this court has stated stand, and they bind this court and the lower courts. This court need not restate them each time a litigant says that a lower court misapplied them,” the president says.
The dispute follows a landmark Constitutional Court judgment in the Phala Phala matter, which held that no individual, including the president, is above the law and that all exercises of public power remain subject to judicial scrutiny.
The apex court also ruled that the National Assembly’s rules cannot permit Members of Parliament to act as “gatekeepers” who shield public office-bearers from accountability.
