Parliament’s lawyers say Ramaphosa went to the wrong court to freeze his inquiry

By Anita Dangazele

• Mokhare warned Parliament the High Court cannot pause a Constitutional Court order and Ramaphosa’s interdict application must therefore fail.

• ATM MP Vuyolwethu Zungula filed court papers opposing Ramaphosa’s interdict, arguing the inquiry rules already guarantee him a fair hearing.

Parliament’s Impeachment Committee resolved on Thursday to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent court application to freeze its inquiry.

Its own lawyers delivered a blunt assessment at the morning briefing: Ramaphosa applied to the wrong court, and the Western Cape High Court has no power to give him what he is asking for.

Advocate William Mokhare SC, advising the committee on behalf of Parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Services Office, explained why.

The committee’s obligation to proceed with the Phala Phala impeachment inquiry does not come from Parliament alone. It comes from a binding order of the Constitutional Court, which referred the Section 89 Ngcobo report to the committee for consideration. Only the apex court can pause its own order.

“The High Court is in no position to do that,” Mokhare said.

He told the committee the inquiry must proceed “without delay, expeditiously, to bring finality to this matter involving the president of the Republic.”

Mokhare put two options to the committee: oppose the interdict outright, or file an explanatory affidavit without opposing. He recommended opposition.

“The first option is the more appropriate, because you will be able to assert your duties and obligations arising from the Constitutional Court judgment,” he said.

On Ramaphosa’s argument that the inquiry threatens his dignity and reputation, Mokhare was direct.

“The president will have every opportunity to controvert evidence and present his own. His rights are not imperilled — a fair hearing will be given, and that alleviates any claim of irreparable harm,” he said.

He was equally direct about the committee’s independence.

“You have not yet assessed the evidence or expressed a view on the merits. Your role is to gather evidence freely, without interference.”

The committee is not alone in opposing the interdict.

The African Transformation Movement and its MP Vuyolwethu Zungula have filed papers in the Western Cape High Court arguing Ramaphosa has no legal basis to fear the inquiry.

The ATM states that the impeachment rules already require the committee to treat him fairly and with procedural fairness, making his dignity argument redundant.

Ramaphosa filed his urgent interdict application on Friday 13 June, arguing he will suffer serious harm if the inquiry proceeds before the court rules on his separate review application challenging the Section 89 Phala Phala report. That review has been fast-tracked by Judge Nathan Erasmus and is set to be heard from 2 to 4 September 2026. The interdict hearing is set for 15 and 16 July.

Pictured above: President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Image source: The Presidency of the Republic of South Africa