Zungula heads to ConCourt to challenge Ramaphosa impeachment interdict

African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyo Zungula has turned to the Constitutional Court in an attempt to overturn the Western Cape High Court’s ruling that temporarily halted Parliament’s impeachment hearings involving President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Zungula has filed an application for leave to appeal Friday’s majority judgment, in which Judges Diane Davis and Andre le Grange ruled in Ramaphosa’s favour, while Judge Matthew Francis dissented.

The High Court ordered Parliament’s Impeachment Committee to suspend its public hearings until Ramaphosa’s review application against the independent panel’s Phala Phala report is decided in September.

Committee chairperson Makashule Gana said the order does not bring all of the committee’s work to a standstill, but only prevents public hearings and oral testimony while the review is pending.

“I have studied the full judgement of the Western Cape High Court and consulted with the legal team. The preparatory work of the committee will continue with the meeting on Wednesday 29 July,” Gana said.

Although preparatory work will continue, Zungula has asked Chief Justice Mandisa Maya to schedule the appeal for hearing during the week of 10 to 14 August.

In papers filed before the Constitutional Court, Zungula argued that the High Court’s order is “irredeemably vague” because the majority judgments fail to define what amounts to a public impeachment hearing.

“The committee is now left to discern for itself what it may or may not do. The vagueness of the majority order offends the rule of law.”

He said the wording of the judgment has left the committee uncertain about the scope of its powers while the interdict remains in force.

According to Zungula, the court’s concern about possible public humiliation has created confusion over whether the committee may continue its work in private.

He questioned whether the committee could continue hearing the matter behind closed doors or instead require Ramaphosa to answer questions in writing, provided neither the questions nor the responses are made public.

Zungula submitted that the majority judgment conflicts with the constitutional framework governing the National Assembly and its impeachment committee.

He further argued that the order granted in Ramaphosa’s favour is without precedent because no court has previously prevented Parliament from conducting an impeachment inquiry, despite similar attempts by constitutional office-bearers.

He also contended that the decision is inconsistent with earlier full Bench judgments of the High Court and runs contrary to Constitutional Court authority cautioning against judicial interference in Parliament’s internal processes.

“An interdict stopping Parliament from conducting an impeachment hearing publicly goes to the heart of its process. It tells Parliament how it may not conduct its business. It does what this court (ConCourt) said courts should not do.”

Zungula further argued that the judgment does not make it clear whether the interdict applies only to Ramaphosa or extends to every witness expected to appear before the committee.

He rejected the argument that the order cannot be appealed because it is merely interim in nature.

“The president will contend that the majority’s order is not appealable because it is interim in nature. That argument would be incorrect.”

Zungula said the matter raises significant constitutional issues and warned that, if left unchallenged, the judgment could be used by Ramaphosa to stop future phases of the impeachment process and provide a blueprint for future presidents to do the same.

The Presidency had not responded to requests for comment by the time of publication.