By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
Day 2 of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application at the Western Cape High Court focused on legal arguments regarding the timing of interim relief, the separation of powers, and whether the independent panel overstepped its mandate.
On Wednesday morning, advocate Wim Trengove SC, representing Ramaphosa, said that 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.
His arguments concerning Ramaphosa’s right to protection drew scrutiny from the judges.
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.
Judge Andre Le Grange queried how Gana would protect Ramaphosa should the report be found to be unlawful. Mokhare responded that the protection refers to the process’s integrity — “it doesn’t extend to what happens if the review is successful or not”.
Advocate 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 very idea that this court is being asked to intervene in the operations of Parliament — that in itself is [harmful],” said Ka-Siboto.
Katz argued that Ramaphosa had failed to make a case for irreparable harm, and failed to show that extraordinary circumstances warranted his urgent application.
It was a Section 89 motion brought by ATM in 2022 that prompted Phala Phala impeachment processes against Ramaphosa.
Some MK members picketed outside the High Court on Wednesday morning, holding placards reading “Ramaphosa must fall” and “I vote MK party 4 November 2026”.