ConCourt refuses to hear Phala Phala interdict appeal
The Constitutional Court has refused an urgent bid to appeal a ruling that brought President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala impeachment inquiry to a halt.
In an order handed down yesterday, the apex court declined to grant direct access and dismissed applications for leave to appeal the earlier judgment, reports The Citizen.
‘It has concluded that no case has been made out for leave to file a replying affidavit. The court has also concluded that it is not in the interests of justice to hear the matter at this stage, given the imminent determination of the review in the Western Cape Division of the High Court, the outcome of which will render the interim interdict moot,’ the order reads.
Several political parties, including the ATM, EFF, United Africans Transformation, and the MKP, had approached the Constitutional Court seeking to overturn a ruling of the Western Cape High Court that granted Ramaphosa an interdict.
As a result, the decision halted the public hearings of Parliament’s Impeachment Committee, pending the President’s review application against a Section 89 independent panel report.
Ramaphosa wants to overturn the panel’s findings after it concluded that he has questions to answer regarding the theft of approximately $580 000 (about R9.6m) from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.
The review is set to be heard from 2 to 4 September 2026 by the Western Cape High Court.
The legal battle follows a Constitutional Court ruling in May this year, which found that Parliament had acted unlawfully by blocking impeachment proceedings against the President in December 2022.
The National Assembly was, therefore, ordered to establish a formal Impeachment Committee to investigate the allegations further.
The committee is made up of 31 members of Parliament from 16 political parties.
The Constitutional Court’s refusal to urgently hear the ATM’s challenge has sparked a fresh row, with the ATM and MKP questioning the impact of the ruling on accountability, reports The Star.
ATM national spokesperson Zama Ntshona said the apex court had missed a ‘golden opportunity’ to settle an important constitutional question with implications beyond the current dispute. He said one of the issues the ATM wanted clarified was whether a lower court could interdict an order of the apex court.
Ntshona added the decision could set a ‘bad precedent’ and accused Ramaphosa of using legal avenues to slow down the process.
MKP national spokesperson Sifiso Mahlangu described the decision as ‘expected’ and ‘predictable’, while questioning public confidence in the judiciary.
‘When a judiciary repeatedly produces outcomes that conveniently align with the interests of those in power, the damage extends far beyond any single judgment,’ Mahlangu said.
Political analyst Kenneth Mokgatlhe-Kgwadi said the ruling would disappoint those who wanted Parliament to exercise its constitutional oversight role over the President.
Political analyst Sandile Swana said due process had to be followed and suggested that the Constitutional Court’s decision indicated that it believed justice could still be served through the pending review.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
