Ramaphosa seeks impeachment inquiry 'pause'

President Cyril Ramaphosa would suffer severe harm if he was subjected to the ignominy of a public hearing before the lawfulness of the panel report that underpinned the process for his impeachment was established. This was submitted by Ramaphosa’s advocates in their heads of argument in the Western Cape High Court on Friday in an urgent application to stay his impeachment process in Parliament for a few months, pending the court’s review of the panel report. ‘The President merely asks for a stay of the impeachment process until this court has determined his application for review of the panel report upon which the motion for his impeachment is based,’ the President’s counsel, Wim Trengove SC and Advocte Ndumiso Luthuli, said. They said the review has been set down for hearing from 2-4 September. ‘The President, in other words, merely asks for a stay of a few months.’ According to TimesLIVE, Ramaphosa’s counsel said the impeachment process was another step in a long-running attempt by the President’s political adversaries to remove him from office. ‘Their attempts came to nought in December 2022 when the National Assembly voted against the President’s impeachment. But, some 3.5 years later, their attempt at impeachment was revitalised by a judgment of the Constitutional Court.’ The latest judgment from the apex court held that the National Assembly rule, in terms of which the resolution of December 2022 was passed, was unconstitutional and invalid. The Constitutional Court replaced the rule and set aside the National Assembly resolution.

Ramaphosa then launched an application in the High Court for the review of the panel’s report. According to TimesLIVE, his counsel said the President’s application was for a modest pause in impeachment proceedings. ‘That is particularly so compared to the three-and-a-half year delay since the panel rendered its report.’ They said the delay was none of the President’s doing. Counsel said in his application for review, the President relied on fundamental flaws in the panel’s report. One of the grounds of review was that the panel fundamentally misunderstood its mandate under the National Assembly’s rules. The lawyers said Ramaphosa contended the panel report was unlawful and was thus to be reviewed and set aside. They said the Constitutional Court did not consider or pronounce on this question at all. On the contrary, they argued, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, in her judgment, stated that when a panel recommends that a Section 89 Inquiry be held, its recommendation must be implemented by a referral to an Impeachment Committee ‘unless and until the report is set aside on review’. ‘She accepted, in other words, that a report before the Impeachment Committee may indeed be reviewed and set aside,’ they said. The lawyers said National Assembly rules protected an incumbent President against the risk of public humiliation by an impeachment hearing on baseless charges.

Full TimesLIVE report