By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Western Cape High Court heard President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent application to interdict Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee from carrying out its inquiry into the Phala Phala matter.
Ramaphosa is seeking to suspend the parliamentary process pending a judicial review of the independent panel report.
The impeachment committee maintains that its mandate to proceed with the inquiry stems from a binding Constitutional Court order and should not be paused.
Speaker of the National Assembly Thoko Didiza has indicated that Parliament will abide by the court’s decision
The ATM, Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) and United Africans Transformation (UAT) parties are opposing his application.
Judges Andre le Grange, Matthew Francis and Diane Davis presided over the matter.
In his review application, Ramaphosa warned MPs that he would be “compelled” to seek an interdict should impeachment proceedings go ahead before his review has been heard. His review application hearing is set for 2-4 September.
Wim Trengove SC, representing Ramaphosa said argument that his client’s bid to block Parliament’s impeachment proceedings is an attempt to evade accountability is baseless and politically motivated.
Trengove SC said the scope of the interdict is limited to the commencement of public impeachment hearings, which would be “humiliating” for the President.
He argued that if the Section 89 panel’s report is flawed and invalid, its invalidity causes harm to the President.
“Very significant harm will be done to the President if the hearing goes ahead and it is ultimately found that the report is invalid,” said Trengove. “It is humiliating to put the President on trial.”
Trengove further argued that the Rules of the National Assembly were designed not only to facilitate an impeachment process, but also to “protect” the President against the “punitive effect” of a “momentous” public inquiry, which he said is without proper foundation.
“We submit, with respect, that the purpose of the scheme of the rules and the purpose with which they have been designed is, in the first place, to hold the President to account where there is a complaint against him worthy of investigation, but at the same time, to protect the President against the humility; against the punitive impact of a public inquiry when there is no justification for it,” he said.
Advocate William Mokhare SC, representing the impeachment committee, argued that the committee would protect Ramaphosa’s rights — as it would any citizen who appeared before it.
“The chairperson [Gana] has stated to this court under oath that he understands his responsibility to be one that must ensure that the proceedings before the impeachment committee are fair and transparent, and to protect the witnesses who may appear before it … including the President, not to be abused before it.”
“So the humiliation that the President is saying that he apprehends will be taken care of by the chairperson to ensure that nobody abuses the committee to advance personal [agendas],” said Mokhare.
Advocate Anton Katz, as well as advocate Mfesane Ka-Siboto, for the EFF, and advocate Dali Mpofu, for MK and UAT, argued that Ramaphosa’s application for an urgent interdict dealt with, at its core, a separation of powers issue.
They argued that the President would not suffer irreparable harm as a result of the impeachment hearing proceeding, but rather the harm would be inflicted on the public if the court were to grant an interdict in this case.
The High Court is expected to hear arguments over two days before delivering its ruling.
Executive Secretary of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC), Lawson Naidoo, said he believes the President has presented “a cogent legal argument” that addresses the legal tests required for an interdict.
“He’s not trying to stop the parliamentary process forever and a day, but simply to allow the opportunity for that review application to be heard,” Naidoo said. “If he’s unsuccessful, then of course the parliamentary process continues.”