By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has written to the Office of the Chief Justice seeking consent to initiate a review application as per Section 47 of the Superior Courts Act, a move that could delay or reshape the revived impeachment process ordered by the Constitutional Court.
In terms of Section 47 of the Superior Courts Act, a litigant must obtain the consent of the chief justice or the relevant head of court before before instituting any civil proceedings or serving a subpoena in respect of civil proceedings on a judge of a Superior Court.
The provision acts as a procedural shield to protect judicial officers from frivolous or vexatious litigation while maintaining judicial impartiality.
Section 47 of the Act does not make a distinction between retired judges and judges still in active service to the judiciary. Second, there are retired judges who continue to feature in judicial functions and other activities.
This is the first step towards reviewing the Section 89 Independent Panel Report.
Ramaphosa’s lawyer declined to comment when contacted by Fullview.
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya granted consent, while approval from Gauteng Judge President Aubrey Ledwaba is still pending.
The president is expected to file a High Court review of the revived section 89 report in the coming days.
A successful review would mean the panel’s findings are set aside, effectively removing the basis for the impeachment committee’s work. Even if the review is not fully successful, it could delay proceedings for months and allow the president time to present his side of the story in detail.
Ramaphosa announced on Monday night, 11 May, that, following advice from his legal team, he would take the report of the panel chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo on judicial review.
The Constitutional Court cleared the path on Friday, 8 May, for a public impeachment hearing into Ramaphosa’s conduct in the Phala Phala saga.
Apex court found that Rule 129I of Rules of the National Assembly was unconstitutional and set it aside. It also set aside the National Assembly (NA) vote in December 2022, in which it declined to refer the Section 89 independent panel report into Ramaphosa’s conduct over Phala Phala to an impeachment committee.
The panel’s report found that Ramaphosa had a case to answer over the theft of $580,000 in cash hidden in a sofa at his Phala Phala farm.
The Constitutional Court ordered that the report be referred to an impeachment committee.
Ramaphosa previously approached the Constitutional Court in December 2022 for direct access to challenge the Section 89 report. However, the Constitutional Court dismissed his application to set aside the report, saying that he had not made a case for going directly to the apex court.
This review application was later abandoned by Ramaphosa’s legal team as a result of the National Assembly vote in which the report was rejected.
The legal challenge will test whether Ramaphosa can contain a scandal that’s posed the biggest risk to his presidency since he came to power eight years ago.
Meanwhile the Speaker of the Parliament Thoko Didiza has declined African Transformation Movement (ATM) notice for a motion of no confidence in Ramaphosa.
“I am declining this submission, as the grounds contained in the motion are the subject matter the Assembly is already seized with, as directed in the judgment of the Constitutional Court (ConCourt),” she wrote in a letter to the party.
ATM sent the Speaker the letter, attaching a notice of a motion of no confidence in the president, two days after the ConCourt sent the Section 89 panel’s report back to parliament.
The apex court ordered the National Assembly to refer the matter to the impeachment committee for further inquiry, paving the way for an impeachment process to proceed.
The 16 political parties represented in the National Assembly will make up the committee’s 31 members, allocated as follows: ANC (9); DA (5); MKP (3); EFF (2); IFP (1); PA (1); FF Plus (1); ActionSA (1); ACDP (1); UDM (1); Rise Mzansi (1); BOSA (1); ATM (1); Al-Jama-ah (1); NCC (1); UAT (1).
The Speaker has also referred the Constitutional Court judgment to the National Assembly Subcommittee on the Review of Rules to consider and process the amendments required to the rules of the National Assembly.