By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Western Cape Division of the High Court in Cape Town wrapped up two days of arguments in president Cyril Ramaphosa’s application to interdict the impeachment proceedings.
Ramaphosa is seeking an urgent interdict to halt the committee’s proceedings — which stem from his conduct in the Phala Phala saga — pending a review of the Section 89 independent panel report.
That panel, chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, found that Ramaphosa had a case to answer over the theft of $580,000 in cash hidden in his sofa at his Phala Phala game farm.
The Constitutional Court cleared the way for an impeachment process to begin when it ordered Parliament to refer the report to an impeachment committee. Ramaphosa subsequently launched a review of the report, which is set to be heard in September.
The African Transformation Movement (ATM), Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK) and United Africans Transformation (UAT) parties are opposing Ramaphosa’s interdict application. The impeachment committee, chaired by Rise Mzansi’s Makashule Gana, also resolved to oppose the interdict on legal grounds.
Advocate Wim Trengove for Ramaphosa argued that the Rules of the National Assembly were designed not only to facilitate an impeachment process, but also to protect the President, and that he would be deprived of that protection if the matter went to an impeachment committee without a valid panel report.
“We submit, in this case, the balance is easy to strike, because on the one hand there is a risk of unlawfully depriving the President of the buffer designed for his protection. That would be an irreversible prejudice suffered by the President once he’s had to suffer the humiliation of an inquiry. As against that, he asks for a two- to three-month delay of that inquiry,” said Trengove in his rebuttal on Thursday.
Advocate Anton Katz SC, representing the African Transformation Movement (ATM), raised the point that the president asks for an order that is not competent. Katz said that the committee commenced with work in May and his interdict application was launched on the 12th of June.
“The president must then know that he cannot get the relief of no commencement.”
Trengove explained that Ramaphosa only asks that the hearing of evidence be halted.
Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, representing MK Party, added that the president speaks of “irreparable harm”, but how can the court rule on something “so speculative”. He said that the harm the president speaks of is “on some speculative basis” upon which the court must intervene. He said that should the court intervene, it would be on “some undefined irreparable harm”.
Judgment was reserved. Judge Andre le Grange said the court intended to deliver a ruling by the end of next week.
Speaking outside court, Section 89 impeachment committee chairperson Makashule Gana said the committee’s preparatory work, including the appointment of an evidence leader and the preparation of witnesses, would continue.
“We are not going to stop until the court has made a determination. The work continues,” Gana said.
Gana added that he has also received the inputs from the committee members in terms of references that they have, which will be consolidated and then, clause by clause, they will go through the terms of reference until it is agreed upon by the committee.