Impeachment committee to appeal Phala Phala interdict ruling - Inside Politics
By Simon Nare The parliamentary Impeachment Committee investigating President Cyril Ramaphosa’s handling of the theft of foreign currency at his Phala Phala farm has resolved to appeal the Western Cape High Court ruling that interdicted its public hearings. The decision was taken during a virtual meeting on Wednesday, with members arguing that the judgment should […]
’s handling of the theft of foreign currency at his Phala Phala farm has resolved to appeal the Western Cape High Court ruling that interdicted its public hearings. The decision was taken during a virtual meeting on Wednesday, with members arguing that the judgment should be challenged to uphold Parliament’s constitutional mandate to hold the President accountable. The committee had previously opposed Ramaphosa’s application to halt its proceedings. Ramaphosa approached the court seeking an interdict, arguing that allowing the committee’s public hearings to proceed before the judicial review of the Independent Panel’s report would cause him irreparable harm. The court granted the interim interdict in a split judgment, with one judge dissenting, but allowed the committee to continue its preparatory work. Committee members in favour of an appeal argued that the ruling undermined Parliament’s oversight role and created uncertainty over the committee’s powers. Others cautioned that the interim order did not prevent the committee from continuing with preparatory work and warned that an appeal could further delay the review process. Those opposed to appealing, particularly ANC and DA members, argued that the move would be futile because the committee’s public hearings are expected to begin in October, by which time the judicial review could already have been finalised. African Transformation Movement (ATM) MP Vuyolwethu Zungula, who is a respondent in the matter, said the judgment was vague and difficult to implement. “When we took the resolution to oppose the interdict application, the principles that were prevalent at the time were to protect the constitutional mandate of the committee and the authority of Parliament. Those principles have not changed,” Zungula said. He told the committee that his party had returned to the Constitutional Court on an urgent basis to seek clarity on how Parliament and the committee should operate under the court order. Zungula warned that failing to appeal would amount to abandoning the committee’s earlier decision to oppose the interdict. UMkhonto we Sizwe parliamentary leader and former Western Cape Judge President Dr John Hlophe said the dissenting judgment strengthened the committee’s case for an appeal. “If anything, the uncertainty has been created by the fact that there is a dissenting judgment, and my view is that the dissenting judgment is more legally persuasive. It is correct. The majority of the judges saw it differently,” Hlophe said. He acknowledged that the judicial review could be concluded before the committee’s public hearings begin but argued that the reasons for opposing the interdict remained valid. After lengthy deliberations, committee chairperson Makashule Gana called for a vote. Members narrowly approved the decision to appeal by a margin of two votes. Gana said the committee’s legal team would prepare and file the necessary papers with the Constitutional Court because the Western Cape High Court had not granted leave to appeal. The committee also voted against calling members of the Independent Panel to appear before it. It will meet again next week to consider the appointment of evidence leaders and the draft terms of reference. Gana urged members to engage outside formal committee meetings to reach consensus on the outstanding issues so the inquiry could proceed without unnecessary delays. INSIDE POLITICS