The Constitutional Court has denied ATM and its MP Vuyo Zungula leave to appeal a ruling that halted public hearings in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala impeachment inquiry.
Graphic - Sharlene Rood. Images: Storm Simpson/News24; South African Police Service
The Constitutional Court denied ATM’s appeal to overturn the Western Cape High Court’s interdict halting the Phala Phala impeachment inquiry.The High Court’s interdict paused public hearings pending President Cyril Ramaphosa’s review of the independent panel’s report.The impeachment committee will proceed with preparations,including finalising terms of reference and appointing an evidence leader.The Constitutional Court denied the African Transformation Movement (ATM) leave to appeal the Western Cape High Court’s ruling granting President Cyril Ramaphosa an interdict halting the Phala Phala impeachment inquiry.
The Western Cape High Court last month stayed the impeachment committee from conducting public hearings pending the conclusion of Ramaphosa’s review application to set aside the report of the Ngcobo panel,which found that he had a case to answer regarding foreign currency stolen from his farm and clandestine efforts to recover the money.
The ATM and Vuyo Zungula,one of the party’s two MPs,subsequently approached the Constitutional Court,seeking direct access to appeal the High Court’s decision.
But in a ruling handed down on Wednesday,the apex court found that the outcome of the review matter would render the interim interdict moot.
ADVERTISEMENT
Zungula was supported by the EFF,MK Party,United Africans Transformation (UAT),and the impeachment committee.
READ | Impeachment committee to ask ConCourt to appeal Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala interdict
Parliament established the impeachment committee after a Constitutional Court ruling in May effectively revived the impeachment process.
The apex court then held that an independent panel’s report must be referred to an impeachment committee when it finds that the president has a case to answer,meaning that the National Assembly did not have the discretion to reject the panel’s recommendation.
ADVERTISEMENT
Therefore,the chamber acted unlawfully when an ANC majority voted down the Ngcobo report in December 2022.
Following the Constitutional Court ruling,Ramaphosa filed an application to review the panel’s report,which,if successful,would put an end to the impeachment proceedings.
Parliament proceeded to assemble the impeachment committee,as the apex court had instructed,and the committee commenced work. The committee opposed Ramaphosa’s application for an interdict.
Ramaphosa then brought the interdict application,which the Western Cape High Court granted on 24 July in a split decision.
While it is an unusual step to appeal an interim interdict ruling,the ATM – supported by the three other parties – nonetheless brought its application for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court days later.
They argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to interdict a process the Constitutional Court had instructed,that the High Court’s urgent order was impermissibly vague,and that the separation of powers and the third parliamentary term demanded urgent intervention.
In his answering affidavit,deposed to on 5 August 2026,Ramaphosa opposed all four applications,contending that the Constitutional Court’s order merely referred the report to the committee without directing a hearing,that the High Court had jurisdiction to grant the interdict,and that the review – set down for 2 to 4 September – was only weeks away.
He said the committee was not ready to hold hearings,having neither adopted its terms of reference nor appointed evidence leaders,and that the harm of a public hearing could not be undone by a later court order.
READ | ANC flags Madonsela’s past brief as Section 89 impeachment leader decision looms
The chairperson of the impeachment committee,Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana,said the committee noted the Constitutional Court’s order.
ADVERTISEMENT
He said the High Court ruling interdicted the committee from continuing with public hearings.
“We will therefore move forward in line with the Western Cape High Court judgment,” Gana said.
“We are going to finalise the committee’s terms of reference and also receive an update on the appointment of the evidence leader at our next meeting.”
The committee decided last week to ask Parliament to appoint Advocate Thandazani Madonsela,SC,as evidence leader.
“Once the evidence leader has been appointed,we will move to the next stage,which will include considering the list of witnesses,” Gana said.
Editor’s note: This article has been updated with additional information.
United News - unews.co.za