The Constitutional Court has directed the ATM, EFF, MK Party, UAT and any other party wishing to oppose the urgent application to overturn the Western Cape High Court’s interim interdict pausing Parliament’s impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa to file their papers by August 5.
The Apex Court made the statement on Thursday.
“Any party that wishes to oppose this application is directed to file their notices to oppose and answering affidavits by Wednesday, August 5, 2026. Further directions may be issued,” the court said.
The EFF has filed papers supporting the African Transformation Movement’s (ATM) urgent application to overturn the Western Cape High Court’s interim interdict.
Other parties that have joined the urgent application filed by ATM leader Vuyo Zungula are the MK Party and UAT.
The EFF described the Western Cape High Court’s majority judgment temporarily halting Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa as “fundamentally flawed”, joining the ATM in seeking leave to appeal the ruling.
The party said it aligned itself with the ATM’s application because both sought the same relief and are united in opposing Ramaphosa’s bid to prevent Parliament from carrying out its constitutional duty to hold him accountable.
The majority judgment, delivered by Judges Diane Davis and André le Grange, granted Ramaphosa an interim interdict preventing Parliament’s Impeachment Committee from continuing its work until the president’s review application against the Independent Panel report on the Phala Phala matter is heard in September.
Judge Matthew Francis dissented.
In court papers, EFF leader Julius Malema argued that Judge Francis correctly found the president has no reasonable prospects of success in the pending review application, a key issue that he said the majority failed to address.
“The majority of the Western Cape High Court answered that question affirmatively by staying the public impeachment hearings pending the president’s review of the panel report. This froze an impeachment process that the Constitutional Court restored two months ago,” Malema said.
He argued that the Independent Panel report remained valid and legally binding until it was set aside by a court.
“As things stand, the panel report remains valid and operative. Francis J correctly restated this position and found that, absent a court finding the report unlawful, it must be treated as valid and the Impeachment Committee is entitled to rely on it. A mere review application does not change that position. The majority is silent on this issue,” Malema said.
The EFF contends that the High Court failed to give sufficient weight to the constitutional implications of its order.
Malema said Parliament had effectively been stripped of its constitutional authority despite the president not challenging the Impeachment Committee’s decision to proceed with the inquiry.
“The order under appeal is, in substance, a constitutional interdict. It temporarily immobilises Parliament from carrying out its core and exclusive constitutional function,” he said.
He added that the Constitutional Court had previously directed that the Independent Panel report be referred to Parliament’s Impeachment Committee, arguing that both Ramaphosa and the High Court misinterpreted that order by suggesting it did not prescribe how or when Parliament should deal with the report.
Malema further argued that the majority judgment failed to appreciate the separation of powers implications of preventing Parliament from exercising its oversight role.
He said the High Court incorrectly elevated the possibility that the panel report could later be declared invalid into immediate “rule of law harm”, effectively creating a right to halt impeachment proceedings simply because a review application had been launched.
The EFF also argued that the matter extends beyond the Phala Phala dispute and will have lasting consequences for future impeachment proceedings.
“Although the review application may be finalised before the end of this year, the issues raised in this appeal are enduring and affect all future impeachment processes in Parliament. This court is invited to clarify the correct constitutional position,” Malema said.
In a statement, the party said Ramaphosa should not be permitted to use the courts to suspend a constitutional accountability process directed at investigating his own conduct.
“Allowing the subject of an impeachment inquiry to stop that inquiry through litigation weakens Parliament’s oversight powers and creates a dangerous precedent, where those entrusted with public power can avoid accountability by delaying constitutional processes.
“It is therefore in the interests of justice for the Constitutional Court to intervene urgently and determine this matter directly, rather than allowing a constitutional accountability process to remain suspended through prolonged litigation in the ordinary appellate process.”
Meanwhile, Parliament’s Impeachment Committee has also resolved to appeal the Western Cape High Court’s ruling.
