Impeachment Committee Chairperson Files Affidavit Opposing President's Interdict

The Chairperson of the Section 89 Impeachment Committee, Mr Makashule Gana, has filed an affidavit opposing President Cyril Ramaphosa's urgent application to interdict the committee's work. This legal challenge arises from the independent panel's report into the 'Phala Phala' matter, which found prima facie evidence of constitutional violations and serious misconduct by the President. The President's interdict seeks to halt the parliamentary impeachment process pending a judicial review of the panel's report. This development underscores the ongoing tension between the executive and legislative branches in South Africa, highlighting critical questions of parliamentary oversight, presidential accountability, and the separation of powers. The Western Cape High Court is scheduled to hear the interdict application in July 2026, with significant implications for the future of the impeachment proceedings and constitutional jurisprudence.

A significant constitutional confrontation is unfolding in South Africa, as the Chairperson of the Section 89 Impeachment Committee, Mr Makashule Gana, has formally opposed President Cyril Ramaphosa's urgent application to interdict the committee from continuing its work. This legal manoeuvre by the President seeks to halt the parliamentary process initiated under Section 89 of the Constitution, which provides for the removal of a President from office, pending a judicial review of the independent panel's report that triggered the impeachment inquiry.

The President's application for an interdict, lodged in the Western Cape High Court, aims to prevent the Impeachment Committee from proceeding with its investigation into allegations of constitutional misconduct arising from the 'Phala Phala' scandal. The committee's decision to oppose this application, alongside other political parties, signals a robust defence of parliamentary autonomy and its constitutional mandate to hold the executive accountable. This article will delve into the legal framework governing presidential impeachment, the nature of interdictory relief, and the broader implications of this high-stakes legal battle for South Africa's constitutional democracy.

The process for the removal of a President in South Africa is governed by Section 89 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. This section stipulates that the National Assembly may remove a President from office only on the grounds of a serious violation of the Constitution or the law, serious misconduct, or inability to perform the functions of office. Following a motion for removal, the Speaker of the National Assembly must refer the matter and any supporting evidence to an independent panel of three legal experts to conduct a preliminary inquiry. This panel assesses whether there is sufficient evidence for Parliament to proceed with a Section 89 inquiry.

The current proceedings stem from the 'Phala Phala' scandal, involving allegations against President Ramaphosa concerning the theft of foreign currency from his farm. An independent panel, chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, investigated these allegations and found prima facie evidence that the President may have violated the Constitution and committed serious misconduct. While the National Assembly initially voted against referring this report to an impeachment committee in December 2022, the Constitutional Court later declared that decision unconstitutional and invalid, and also struck down Rule 129I of the National Assembly Rules. This ruling necessitated the establishment of the current Impeachment Committee to investigate the matter further.

President Ramaphosa subsequently launched an urgent application in the Western Cape High Court to interdict the Impeachment Committee's work, arguing that allowing the inquiry to proceed while the Section 89 panel report's legal validity is disputed could cause "irreparable" political and reputational harm. The President's legal team contends that he has a right not to face impeachment unless it is preceded by a lawful and valid independent report. The Impeachment Committee, through its Chairperson, Mr Makashule Gana, has now formally opposed this urgent application, with the matter set for hearing in July 2026.

The legal battle between President Ramaphosa and the Impeachment Committee implicates fundamental principles of South African constitutional law, particularly the separation of powers and the requirements for interdictory relief. For an interim interdict, the President must demonstrate a *prima facie* right, a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the interdict is not granted, that the balance of convenience favours granting the relief, and the absence of any other satisfactory remedy. The President's argument hinges on the alleged unlawfulness or invalidity of the independent panel's report, which he has taken on judicial review. He argues that proceeding with the impeachment inquiry based on a potentially flawed report would infringe his rights and cause irreversible damage.

The Impeachment Committee's opposition, supported by various political parties, is likely to assert the principle of parliamentary autonomy and the legislature's constitutional duty to hold the executive accountable. Courts generally exercise self-restraint in interfering with parliamentary processes, particularly those concerning internal procedures, unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution. Landmark cases such as *Speaker of the National Assembly v De Lille and Another* [1999] 4 All SA 241 (A) and *Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others* [2016] ZACC 11 have affirmed that while parliamentary privilege and internal arrangements are protected, they are ultimately subject to the supremacy of the Constitution and judicial review. The Constitutional Court, in *Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Another* [2017] ZACC 47, specifically ordered the National Assembly to make rules regulating presidential impeachment, underscoring the justiciable nature of such processes.

The committee's stance will likely emphasise that its role is investigatory, not determinative of guilt, and that the President's rights are protected throughout the process, including the opportunity to present evidence and challenge allegations. The argument will be that an interdict would unduly trespass on the exclusive terrain of the legislature and delay a constitutionally mandated accountability process. The balance of convenience argument will weigh the potential harm to the President against the public interest in ensuring executive accountability and upholding the integrity of constitutional processes. The Speaker of the National Assembly, while not opposing the interdict, has indicated she will file an explanatory affidavit to clarify Parliament's constitutional responsibilities and compliance with previous court rulings, effectively supporting the committee's position.

The legal challenge to interdict the Section 89 Impeachment Committee represents a critical juncture for South Africa's constitutional architecture. The Western Cape High Court's decision on President Ramaphosa's urgent application will have profound implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, and for the interpretation of parliamentary oversight mechanisms. A successful interdict could significantly delay the impeachment proceedings, potentially for years, while a dismissal would allow the committee to proceed with its investigation into the 'Phala Phala' allegations.

Practitioners should closely monitor the court's reasoning, particularly regarding the interplay between judicial review of preliminary parliamentary reports and the legislature's constitutional mandate. The outcome will shape the procedural landscape for presidential accountability and set precedents for future challenges to parliamentary processes. This case reaffirms the judiciary's role as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional disputes, even those involving the highest offices of the state, and underscores the ongoing evolution of South Africa's democratic checks and balances.