EFF races to ConCourt to revive Ramaphosa Phala Phala impeachment

In an urgent bid to restore parliamentary oversight, the EFF have petitioned the Constitutional Court to overturn a Western Cape High Court ruling that halted Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa emerged victorious after his interdict application to halt Parliament’s impeachment process relating to the Phala Phala scandal was successful. The Western Cape High Court in Cape Town delivered its ruling on Friday, following two days of argument heard last week before Judges André le Grange, Matthew Francis and Diane Davis.

In a founding affidavit deposed by EFF President Julius Malema, the party seeks to join the urgent application already filed by Vuyo Zungula and the African Transformation Movement (ATM). Legal battle The legal battle centres on whether the president can utilise the courts to suspend a constitutional process designed to hold him accountable while he reviews the independent Panel Report. The dispute arises from a Western Cape High Court majority decision that stayed “public impeachment hearings” pending the president’s review of the Panel Report.

The EFF strongly opposes this, aligning with the minority judgment of Francis J, who observed that the Panel Report remains valid and operative “unless and until set aside”. Ramaphosa review application According to the EFF, a mere review application cannot dislodge this status, and the Impeachment Committee remains entitled to rely on the report, which found a “prima facie case for the Impeachment Committee to consider”. At the heart of the EFF’s appeal is the argument that the High Court’s interim interdict severely violates the separation of powers.

The EFF contends that the order is, in substance, a “constitutional interdict” that “temporarily immobilises Parliament from carrying out its core and exclusive constitutional function”. Holding executive to account Malema argues that holding the Executive to account is “primarily and exclusively the function of Parliament”. Consequently, the EFF warns of immediate constitutional damage.

“Every second that the order operates, Parliament’s constitutional accountability function is curtailed”. ‘OUTA principle’ The EFF further accuses the High Court majority of misapplying the landmark OUTA principle. The majority justified its intrusion by finding that the decision to hold the President accountable was no…