By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
Parliament’s impeachment committee has resolved to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application to halt its work while he challenges the report that found he has a prima facie case over theft of at least $580,000 from his Phala Phala farm in 2020.
The President argues that allowing the inquiry to continue before his review application is heard could cause him irreparable harm. His review challenge is scheduled to be heard from 2 to 4 September.
The committee received legal advice from Parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Services Office after Ramaphosa approached the Western Cape High Court last week seeking an urgent interdict to stop the impeachment inquiry from proceeding.
In a meeting of the impeachment committee on Thursday, 18 June 2026, the majority of the 31-member panel favoured opposing Ramaphosa’s interdict application.
The decision sets up a high-stakes constitutional showdown in the Western Cape High Court, scheduled for July 15 and 16.
The committee sought an independent legal opinion from advocate William Mokhare SC, who laid out its options.
Mokhare, advised MPs that the committee could either oppose the President’s application or file an explanatory affidavit outlining Parliament’s constitutional obligations.
He said opposing the application was the preferred option, as it would allow the committee to assert its constitutional mandate.
He stressed, however, that opposing the interdict does not mean the committee has formed a view on the merits of the impeachment inquiry.
“You were appointed to be independent and impartial. At this stage, you have not yet formulated a view on the merits and demerits of the impeachment itself. You have not had the opportunity to assess the evidence or call for evidence,” Mokhare said.
Mokhare also told members that while Ramaphosa was has the right to approach the courts, that does not suspend Parliament’s constitutional duty to carry its work.
“We appreciate that the President has the right to approach the court and ask for whatever relief he wants, but that does not detract from whatever obligation is imposed by the Constitutional Court to proceed to do its work. The committee would not be acting inappropriately if it decides to oppose the interdict application on legal grounds,” he said.
Committee chairperson, Makashule Gana, said the prevailing view was that the committee should oppose Ramaphosa’s application for an interdict.
“The prevailing opinion, which is based on the inputs that have been made by the parties, is that the committee needs to oppose the urgent application of an interdict by the President, “Gana said.
“As the chairperson of the impeachment committee, I align myself with the prevailing opinion. I intend to represent the committee in opposing the interdict. I will petition the Speaker to also join in opposing this application.”
The committee will meet on Wednesday to consider its draft terms of reference and outline the process for appointing independent evidence leaders.