The African Transformation Movement (ATM) has dismissed President Cyril Ramaphosa’s concerns that Parliament’s impeachment proceedings could cause irreparable harm to his reputation, arguing that the process is a constitutional obligation that should continue.
The party has filed an affidavit opposing Ramaphosa’s application to halt the work of Parliament’s impeachment committee while he pursues a legal review of the Section 89 independent panel report that gave rise to the inquiry.
The development comes as both the ATM and Parliament’s impeachment committee move to challenge the president’s bid to interdict the proceedings.
Ramaphosa is seeking to stop the inquiry pending the outcome of his court challenge against the independent panel report, which found there was prima facie evidence that he may have violated the Constitution and committed serious misconduct in relation to the 2020 theft of at least $580,000 from his Phala Phala farm.
ATM parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula, who initiated impeachment proceedings against Ramaphosa in 2022, argued in court papers that the report being challenged by the president forms only one part of a broader and multi-layered parliamentary process.
According to Zungula, the report is preliminary in nature and therefore not subject to judicial review at this stage.
He further argued that the impeachment committee is legally required to conduct its work in a reasonable and procedurally fair manner, meaning the president faces no risk of grave injustice or permanent harm while the inquiry unfolds.
The ATM also contends that the matter lacks urgency and that there is no realistic prospect of Ramaphosa being impeached before the Western Cape High Court has an opportunity to rule on the review application.
Speaking during a meeting of Parliament’s impeachment committee, Zungula urged lawmakers to oppose the president’s application, arguing that allowing the interdict would undermine both Parliament and the Constitutional Court.
His comments came after the committee resolved to oppose the application following receipt of an independent legal opinion advising that it has a constitutional duty to carry out its mandate as directed by the Constitutional Court.
The latest legal battle stems from a Constitutional Court ruling that Parliament acted unlawfully when it blocked impeachment proceedings against Ramaphosa in 2022. The judgment compelled the National Assembly to establish an impeachment committee to investigate the allegations arising from the Phala Phala scandal.
The outcome of the interdict application could determine whether Parliament’s inquiry proceeds while the courts consider the legality of the Section 89 panel report.
Facebook Comments