By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
Judgment has been reserved in the Western Cape High Court in the review application challenging the Section 89 independent panel report brought by President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Ramaphosa brought this review litigation after the Constitutional Court in May 2026 effectively relaunched impeachment proceedings by setting aside the December 2022 National Assembly vote in which the ANC used its parliamentary majority to vote down the Section 89 report.
The apex court in early 2023 had dismissed Ramaphosa’s direct access application to review the report, and it was left there.
On Friday, advocate Dali Mpofu, for the MK party, argued that the president was using delaying tactics and that, if his review were to succeed, it would stall accountability.
“We are going to be here 17 times,” he said in reference to the different steps of the parliamentary impeachment rule. “If the court allows that to happen, the court will participate in a scheme to stop accountability.”
That emphasis on Ramaphosa’s accountability – and that this trumped potential presidential discomfort and irreparable harm – was the thread through legal arguments by the African Transformation Movement (ATM), whose leader brought the original impeachment motion in July 2022, the MK party, EFF and the United Africans Transformation (UAT).
They maintained the Section 89 panel report had provided sufficient evidence for Ramaphosa to appear before the parliamentary impeachment committee.
It was up to UAT advocate Thabani Masuku to explain Parliament’s paralysis on holding the president to account if Ramaphosa’s review application succeeded, arguing that the parliamentary process could not be halted midstream.
Judge Ncumisa Mayosi had pointed out that the impeachment motion, and the Speaker’s referral, would still stand and allow parliamentary accountability proceedings, adding: “The constitutional process of holding the president to account must have integrity.”
Throughout the hearing, the judges brought arguments back to the Section 89 panel report’s charges, centred around violations of conduct standards enshrined in Section 96 of the Constitution: that Ramaphosa, through his Phala Phala farm, did paid work, and that he had a conflict of interest and abused the office in relation to the off-the books investigation by his protection detail head, including travel to Namibia.
Another charge is Ramaphosa’s failure to report the theft in accordance with the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.
Ramaphosa’s advocate, Wim Trengove, in his replying affidavit argued that the Section 89 panel’s failure to ask the right questions, properly evaluate the information, and consider the irreparable reputational harm of the process to the president “… will be damaging to the national interest, the public interest.
Further, the very process, the impeachment inquiry and the outcomes could be destabilising to the effective governance of the country.”
CASAC Executive Secretary Lawson Naidoo said the Section 89 panel reached conclusions without testing evidence through a proper inquiry, arguing that the process relied on untested allegations rather than verified facts.