Political parties have reacted sharply to the Western Cape High Court’s decision to suspend public hearings of Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala matter, with opposition parties accusing the President of delaying accountability while the ANC welcomed the ruling as an affirmation of his right to seek legal relief.
This comes after the Western Cape High Court on Friday interdicted the Section 89 Impeachment Committee from proceeding with public hearings pending the outcome of Ramaphosa’s review application against the Independent Panel report.
The President is challenging the findings of the panel, chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, which found that he may have a case to answer over the theft of foreign currency at his Phala Phala farm.
Impeachment Committee chairperson Makashule Gana said the committee would study the full judgment before determining its next steps.
“I note the decision of the Western Cape High Court to interdict the public hearings of the impeachment committee pending the review by President Ramaphosa that he has applied for,” Gana said.
“We now await the full judgment, which we will study, and we’ll then be able to give further updates in terms of the work that the committee still has to do, because from what I heard is that it’s only the public hearings that have been interdicted.”
The ANC welcomed the ruling, saying it affirmed Ramaphosa’s right to seek legal relief.
ANC MP Mikateko Mahlaule said the judgment should not be interpreted as a finding on whether Ramaphosa was guilty or innocent.
“The ANC welcomes the judgment. We want to affirm the independence of the judiciary. We respect the independence of the judiciary,” Mahlaule said.
He said the court decision did not prevent Parliament from continuing its constitutional responsibilities.
“It says the President has sought relief until the review has been finalised, and that is it,” Mahlaule said.
However, opposition parties accused Ramaphosa of using the courts to delay accountability.
EFF national chairperson Nontando Nolutshungu said the ruling followed what she described as a pattern of avoiding accountability.
“We are shocked but not surprised because this has been the pattern,” Nolutshungu said.
She said the party would study the judgment before deciding on its next steps.
“So here we’re dealing with someone who’s really avoiding accountability. So it is a pattern, and we’re going to study the judgment and see how we then move forward,” she said.
DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach said the ruling was a pragmatic outcome but argued that the committee could continue with preparatory work while awaiting the review process.
“It doesn’t prevent the impeachment committee from doing its preparatory preparations, setting up terms of reference, compiling lists of witnesses, appointing an evidence leader,” Breytenbach said.
She said the ruling did not necessarily mean the inquiry would be delayed indefinitely.
“It doesn’t have to delay the impeachment committee indefinitely. We can get all of the administrative work done, so that as soon as the review is heard, we can either immediately start or not, depending on the outcome,” she said.
Breytenbach said the Phala Phala matter remained politically significant for Ramaphosa despite the court victory.
“Politically, it’s quite a big decision. But the fact of the matter is, politically, this whole Phala Phala thing is a huge thing for him politically,” she said.
MK Party MP Andile Mngxitama criticised the ruling, saying it would delay the President from answering questions before Parliament.
“We’re disappointed, but it’s not unexpected,” Mngxitama said.
He questioned why Ramaphosa was challenging the process if he had nothing to hide.
“If he is not guilty for stuffing his furniture with dollars which have not been accounted for, why is he afraid to come before the impeachment committee?” Mngxitama said.
ATM parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula also criticised the judgment, arguing that it could weaken Parliament’s accountability role.
“What transpired today is unprecedented,” Zungula said.
He argued that Ramaphosa’s legal challenge was aimed at delaying the inquiry rather than resolving the allegations.
“This application by the president had nothing to do with clearing his name or setting aside that report. It was about a delay,” Zungula said.
The Section 89 committee had been preparing for the inquiry, including considering whether Ramaphosa should personally testify, the appointment of an evidence leader and the finalisation of terms of reference.
The committee will now await the full judgment and the outcome of Ramaphosa’s review application, which is set down for September.
