President Cyril Ramaphosa is intending to interdict the Phala Phala impeachment proceedings against him, the Sunday Times has learnt.
As parliament moved ahead this week with the first steps to launch the process, sources close to Ramaphosa indicated an interdict was central to a strategy to stall MPs at least until a court had reviewed the section 89 panel report that is at the centre of the impeachment drama.
Ramaphosa on Monday, in an address to the nation, strongly indicated he has no intention of resigning and will take the report on review. But an interdict would be an additional, dramatic intervention that would essentially allow the president to stymie parliament. It would be likely to spark outrage from his opponents, who would see it as a new bid to avoid or delay accountability.
Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya declined to comment.
A source close to the president said the option of an interdict had been discussed extensively following the Constitutional Court judgment on May 8 that found fault with the way parliament had handled, and aborted, the impeachment process in December 2022.
A source close the the president said: “When you file for a review it can take time. It can even take a year. As long as it’s not on the court roll there’s nothing you can do. So the only thing to do right now is to interdict it first and then take it to review.
You can file your review but there’s a backlog in courts and it can even take a year before it’s heard and by that time the impeachment would have continued
— Source close the the president
“The president must and will interdict the process next week. So he’s going to interdict first and then do a review at a later stage because if he doesn’t it means the impeachment process will continue.
“You can file your review but there’s a backlog in courts and it can even take a year before it’s heard and by that time the impeachment would have continued.”
Referring to the parliamentary process, another source said: “It would really be wasteful expenditure.” There was “really nothing to lose” by freezing the process “for a short period” until the result of the review was known, this source said.
Another source confirmed that an interdict was “an option”, adding that a final decision would depend on legal advice once the president’s papers had been finalised.
Asked about the interdict, ANC spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu said the party was aware only of the position it outlined in its official statement, which does not mention an interdict application.
Any move to interdict the parliamentary process is likely to face stiff opposition from MPs, especially those in parties outside the GNU, such as the ATM and the EFF — the party behind the application asking the Constitutional Court to ensure the impeachment process goes ahead.
Nontando Nolutshungu, chief whip of the EFF, has said any future delay would be an “abrogation of parliament’s duties”.
ATM leader Vuyo Zungula, referring to Ramaphosa’s intention to review the panel report, said: “It is worrying that a person who came to office on the ticket of clean governance, anti-corruption and ethical leadership is fighting hard from being held accountable by the National Assembly. The president as a constitutionalist as people claim, must subject himself to the Constitutional provisions of accountability by the only institution that elected him and he is accountable to. The courts must dismiss the review application, done in bad faith.”
National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza now faces mounting political and legal pressure over whether parliament should oppose Ramaphosa’s application for a judicial review — and for an interdict, if he does indeed apply for one
The DA, the second-biggest party in parliament and the main partner of the ANC in the GNU, has said it “will never be party to protecting misconduct” and would “participate fully and constructively in the process”.
DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis told the Sunday Times yesterday: “We’re keen to get the committee started as soon as possible, so we can get to the truth. Everyone is entitled to pursue their legal rights, but we hope there’ll be no major delay.”
As Ramaphosa weighed his options with top ANC leaders this week, parliament was discussing the composition of the impeachment committee, which will consist of 31 members. The ANC will get the biggest share of seats on the committee, but it no longer has the outright majority that it did in 2022, when it could steamroller opposition parties.
National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza now faces mounting political and legal pressure over whether parliament should oppose Ramaphosa’s application for a judicial review — and for an interdict, if he does indeed apply for one.
Senior ANC and parliamentary insiders told the Sunday Times that Didiza was caught between a rock and a hard place as legal advisers and political figures debate whether her office, as custodian of the section 89 process, had a duty to oppose Ramaphosa’s legal action. (Section 89 of the constitution is the clause that gives the National Assembly the authority to impeach a president.)
The president is expected to file court papers early this week contesting the report of the section 89 inquiry that found prima facie evidence against him in the handling of the aftermath of the robbery of more than $500,000 from a couch at his Phala Phala game farm in 2020.
In her capacity as speaker, Didiza will be one of the central respondents in any legal challenge. Her office established the independent panel of three jurists that produced the report.
Senior ANC insiders said Didiza was weighing whether neutrality required her office to wait for the legal case to run its course, or whether parliament had an obligation to defend the integrity of the section 89 process by fighting the case.
“The dilemma for the speaker is not necessarily the review itself,” said one insider familiar with discussions around the matter.
“The real issue is what happens if there is an urgent interdict. A review does not automatically stop impeachment proceedings. The president would have to seek an interdict. The question then becomes: what position should the institution being interdicted take, because the speaker leads that institution.”
The question then becomes: what position should the institution being interdicted take, because the Speaker leads that institution
— Senior ANC insider
Ramaphosa was also said to be considering approaching the judge president of the Western Cape High Court to seek a preferential date for the review of the panel’s report.
Sources with knowledge of discussions inside parliament said one option under consideration was for the speaker to file a notice to abide by the court’s decision rather than actively oppose Ramaphosa’s applications. Those sources pointed to the approach adopted by her predecessors, Baleka Mbete and Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, in related matters.
Some insiders, however, said Didiza was wary of the Mbete precedent — she drew criticism for the way parliament had protected Zuma from accountability in the Nkandla saga.
Insiders said Didiza was concerned about protecting the credibility of parliament and avoiding perceptions that her office was acting in the interests of the governing party rather than the legislature itself.
The ANC national executive committee discussed the crisis facing Ramaphosa at its meeting on Wednesday.
According to insiders, one of the proposed ways to postpone the day of reckoning was for parliament to prioritise the amendment of rule 129I, which the Constitutional Court ruling found to be inconsistent with the constitution and invalid.
But some NEC members argued that focusing on amending the rules would not stop the impeachment process because chief justice Mandisa Maya had already indicated the two matters could be addressed concurrently.
“The [top seven] were sliding in that direction in their presentations,” said one insider. “There is no way out for parliament.”
ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula on Friday defended Ramaphosa’s decision to pursue a judicial review.“Section 89 gives us the pathway in relation to what options are at the disposal of the president, which is the review,” he said.
He said the NEC was unanimous in supporting Ramaphosa’s approach.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.