ConCourt Rejects ATM Bid to Appeal Ramaphosa Impeachment Interdict
The Constitutional Court has rejected an attempt by African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyo Zungula to challenge a court order that halted Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The apex court dismissed Zungula’s application for leave to appeal directly to it against a ruling by the Western Cape High Court.
The dispute centres on an interim interdict granted to Ramaphosa, which suspended public hearings by Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee.
The interdict remains in force while the president’s review application concerning the independent panel’s report into the Phala Phala matter is being considered.
Constitutional Court Says Case Is Not Yet in the Interests of Justice
In its ruling on Wednesday, the Constitutional Court found that it would not be in the interests of justice to hear Zungula’s appeal at this stage.
The court noted that the outcome of Ramaphosa’s review application could render the interim interdict moot.
This means the Constitutional Court has declined to intervene while the underlying legal challenge remains before the High Court.
The decision effectively leaves the existing interdict in place for now, preventing Parliament’s Section 89 committee from proceeding with its public hearings until the legal process surrounding Ramaphosa’s review is resolved.
Zungula’s Challenge Centred on Ramaphosa’s Interdict
Zungula had challenged the Western Cape High Court’s decision to grant Ramaphosa interim relief against the parliamentary impeachment process.
The Section 89 process was initiated following the independent panel’s findings concerning the Phala Phala farm robbery and the questions it raised about the president’s conduct.
The panel’s report became a major political flashpoint, placing renewed pressure on Ramaphosa and Parliament.
Ramaphosa subsequently approached the courts to challenge the report and sought to prevent Parliament’s impeachment process from continuing while that legal challenge was being considered.
The resulting interdict has since become a key battleground in the broader political and legal dispute.
No Costs Order Made
The Constitutional Court also refused an application linked to the filing of a replying affidavit.
It made no order as to costs.
The ruling does not determine the merits of Ramaphosa’s review application itself. Instead, the court’s decision concerns whether Zungula’s challenge to the interim interdict should be heard directly by the apex court at this stage.
The immediate consequence is that the parliamentary impeachment proceedings remain suspended pending further developments in the review process.
Phala Phala Battle Continues
The Constitutional Court’s decision marks another significant development in the long-running legal battle surrounding the Phala Phala report and the attempt to hold Ramaphosa accountable through Parliament’s Section 89 process.
For now, the focus shifts back to the review proceedings.
Their outcome could determine whether the interdict remains relevant and whether Parliament’s impeachment process can eventually resume.
The Constitutional Court’s refusal to hear Zungula’s appeal means the political controversy surrounding Phala Phala is far from over. But for the moment, the legal path remains tied to the outcome of Ramaphosa’s review application.
