President Cyril Ramaphosa’s fight to stop his impeachment inquiry is a movie South Africa has seen before, with the same four advocates in starring roles, the Western Cape High Court heard on Wednesday.
‘Nkandla to Phala Phala’ comparison
Advocate Anton Katz SC, for the ATM, told the court the cameras made him feel as though he was in a movie, and he even offered a title.
“The name of the movie is Nkandla to Phala Phala, The Saga Continues,” Katz said.
“And four of us — Mokhare, Mpofu, Trengove and I — are veterans of this saga.”
Katz was referring to himself, Advocate William Mokhare SC, for impeachment committee chairperson Makashule Gana, Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, for the MK Party, and Advocate Wim Trengove SC, for the president.
All four appeared in litigation over former president Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla scandal a decade ago.
Ramaphosa has asked the court to stop Parliament’s impeachment committee from starting its inquiry into the theft of US dollars from his Phala Phala farm in Limpopo, pending his separate application to review the independent panel report that found he had a case to answer.
At least $580,000 in cash was stolen from the farm near Bela-Bela in February 2020. Ramaphosa said the money came from the sale of buffaloes to a Sudanese businessman.
The matter is before a full bench comprising Judges André le Grange, Matthew Francis and Diane Davis.
Read here what Trengove argued on Wednesday morning.
Katz: Ramaphosa seeks ‘extraordinary relief’
Katz read to the court from the Constitutional Court’s 2016 Nkandla judgment, in which then chief justice Mogoeng Mogoeng warned that it fell outside the parameters of judicial authority to prescribe to the National Assembly how to hold the executive accountable.
He said the president was asking the court to cross into the lane of another branch of government.
“This application asks for extraordinary relief,” Katz said.
“And not only that, it hasn’t even got off the ground in making a case for ordinary relief.”
Parliament acted within its powers, court hears
Katz said the president’s papers nowhere attacked Parliament’s decision to continue with the inquiry despite his review application, and that this undermined the entire case.
He said the Speaker and the impeachment committee had considered the president’s request to postpone the inquiry and had decided to proceed — a decision squarely within Parliament’s own lane.
“He doesn’t like it. He talks about humiliation, defamation, all those things, but he doesn’t critique, there’s no review of Parliament’s decision to continue,” he said.
“That’s the end of his case.”
Katz told the bench the matter before it was not the review of the panel’s report itself.
“This is not the review. This is a disturbance of a process that is unfolding,” he said.
He also said Trengove had made a concession earlier in the day that was destructive of his entire argument on the validity of the report, which he said he would return to.
Mokhare defends continuation of inquiry
Earlier, Mokhare argued that the Constitutional Court itself had referred the panel’s report to the impeachment committee when it revived the impeachment process in May.
“It’s not the Speaker who referred it to the committee,” he said.
Mokhare argued that an impeachment process, once started, had to run its course to the final step — a National Assembly vote on the president’s removal.
“You can’t hold it midway,” he said.
Judges question whether process can be paused
The bench pushed back on his argument that the process could not be paused.
One judge pointed out that the Constitutional Court’s judgment stated the referral stood “unless and until the report is set aside on review”, which was precisely what the president was attempting.
“Why would the chief justice say ‘unless and until the report has been set aside on review’? Why would she mention that if the process cannot be stopped?” the judge asked.
Mokhare said the phrase was a general statement of legal principle and not an invitation to the president.
“It would be incorrect to read this sentence in paragraph 139 to mean that the Constitutional Court has granted the president leave to take the report on judicial review,” he said.
A judge told him directly that the bench disagreed with his interpretation.
“Where I’m sitting, I differ from your proposition,” the judge said.
Background to the impeachment process
The panel, chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, found in November 2022 that Ramaphosa had a prima facie case to answer over the theft, including that he may have breached a legal duty to report it to the police.
The president has denied any wrongdoing, saying the money came from the sale of buffaloes.
The ANC used its then majority to reject the report in December 2022, but the Constitutional Court set that vote aside in May and ordered that the report be referred to an impeachment committee.
The inquiry could ultimately end in a National Assembly vote on the president’s removal from office, which requires a two-thirds majority.
Ramaphosa’s review application is set down for September 2 to 4.
Mpofu to argue after lunch adjournment
The court adjourned for lunch, with Mpofu, appearing for the MK Party, set to present his arguments when proceedings resumed.
