By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has launched an urgent application to oppose the direct access appeal launched before the Constitutional Court, which seeks to overturn the ruling of the Western Cape High Court halting impeachment proceedings.
Ramaphosa’s application follows the ConCourt directive that the parties who wishes to oppose the application in the Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee interdict appeal to file their submissions by the 05th of August 2026.
The Western Cape High Court granted Ramaphosa an interim interdict halting public hearings of Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee.
Political Parties ATM, EFF, MK Party, and UAT, including the Section 89 committee launched urgent direct appeals to set aside the interdict.
In an affidavit filed with the Constitutional Court, Ramaphosa says applications filed by Impeachment Committee, the EFF, ATM and the MK Party to oppose that interdict are misguided and lack merit.
Ramaphosa said he’s acting on the advice of his legal counsel and does not express any personal views on the legalities of the case.
He said nothing will be lost if Parliament waits for the outcome of the next step in his legal challenge against his impeachment before proceeding with the inquiry.
The High Court is due to consider the lawfulness of the report that has given rise to the inquiry into the President’s conduct following the theft of US dollars from his farm Phala Phala next month.
For this reason, Ramaphosa said applicants have made no case for direct access to the Constitutional Court to hear their appeal, and their applications are not urgent.
He said the Constitutional Court should only consider appeals in exceptional circumstances.
He also rejects any suggestion that the Constitutional Court should intervene simply because the applicants claim lower courts misapplied existing legal principles.
Ramaphosa is asking the apex court to dismiss the applications of the four applicants with costs.
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.