ConCourt refuses direct appeal over Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala impeachment inquiry

The Constitutional Court has refused an application by African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyolwethu Zungula and the party to directly appeal a Western Cape high court order that temporarily halted parliament’s impeachment proceedings against president Cyril Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala matter.

In an order dated Wednesday, the apex court also refused an application by the MK Party and United Africans Transformation (UAT) to file a replying affidavit in the matter.

Ramaphosa, the speaker of the National Assembly, the chairperson of the impeachment committee, the EFF, MK Party and UAT were cited as respondents.

The court said the applicants had failed to make out a case for the matter to be heard directly at this stage and that it was also not in the interests of justice to intervene while a related review application was due to be determined by the Western Cape high court, “the outcome of which will render the interim interdict moot”, it said.

The ruling stems from the ongoing legal battle over parliament’s impeachment inquiry into Ramaphosa arising from the Phala Phala game farm scandal.

Ramaphosa previously approached the Western Cape high court and was granted an interim interdict on July 24, preventing parliament’s impeachment committee from proceeding with oral evidence against him.

The interdict was granted pending the outcome of a broader judicial review of the report produced by the Section 89 independent panel which investigated whether there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa had committed serious misconduct or violated the constitution in connection with the Phala Phala burglary.

Zungula and ATM, joined by a number of opposition parties, argued before the Constitutional Court that the interim interdict improperly interfered with parliament’s constitutional oversight and impeachment functions.

The apex court’s reasoning means that it has not at this stage made a determination on the substantive issues surrounding the validity of the interim interdict or the merits of the underlying Phala Phala impeachment process.

Instead, it held that the imminent high court review should be allowed to run its course.