The African Transformation Movement (ATM) says it is not backing down from its efforts to hold President Cyril Ramaphosa accountable over the Phala Phala scandal, despite the Western Cape High Court temporarily halting Parliament’s impeachment process.
ATM leader and Member of Parliament Vuyo Zungula has confirmed that the party has approached the Constitutional Court in an urgent bid to overturn Friday’s High Court ruling, arguing that the decision has effectively stalled Parliament’s constitutional duty to determine whether the President should face impeachment proceedings.
The latest legal challenge stems from the Section 89 impeachment process, a constitutional mechanism that allows Parliament to remove a sitting President from office under exceptional circumstances. Unlike a vote of no confidence, which is largely political, Section 89 of the Constitution requires Parliament to determine whether the President has committed a serious violation of the Constitution or the law, engaged in serious misconduct, or is unable to perform the functions of office.
If at least two-thirds of the National Assembly vote in favour of impeachment, the President must be removed from office. A successful impeachment also carries severe consequences, including the loss of certain benefits associated with the presidency and restrictions on holding future public office.
The current impeachment proceedings originate from the Phala Phala controversy, which first emerged in 2022 after allegations that a large sum of foreign currency had been stolen from President Ramaphosa’s private game farm in Limpopo. Questions were subsequently raised about how the money entered the country, whether it had been properly declared to authorities, and whether state resources were improperly used to investigate the theft.
An independent Section 89 panel, appointed by Parliament, later concluded that there was prima facie evidence suggesting that President Ramaphosa may have violated the Constitution and the law.
The legal term prima facie means that there is sufficient evidence at first glance to justify further investigation. It does not mean someone has been found guilty, but rather that enough evidence exists for formal proceedings to continue.
President Ramaphosa has consistently denied wrongdoing and launched a legal challenge seeking to review and set aside the panel’s findings.
Last week, the Western Cape High Court granted Ramaphosa an interim interdict, preventing Parliament’s impeachment committee from continuing its public hearings until the President’s review application has been heard.
An interim interdict is a temporary court order designed to preserve the status quo while another legal dispute is still being decided. It does not determine the final outcome of the case but temporarily suspends certain actions until the court reaches a final judgment.
The President’s review application is scheduled to be heard between 2 and 4 September in the Western Cape High Court.
For the ATM, however, the temporary suspension itself is now the subject of another legal battle.
Zungula argues that the High Court’s decision has immediate constitutional consequences because it prevents Parliament from carrying out its oversight responsibilities.
“The order is appealable because it has a final effect on parliamentary processes.”
According to Zungula, the party has filed an urgent direct appeal with the Constitutional Court, seeking clarity on whether the High Court was entitled to suspend Parliament’s impeachment process while the review remains unresolved.
The Constitutional Court is South Africa’s highest court on constitutional matters. It has the final authority to interpret the Constitution and determine disputes involving the powers and responsibilities of the country’s institutions.
Normally, appeals move through several levels of the court system before reaching the Constitutional Court. However, in exceptional cases involving urgent constitutional questions or matters of significant public importance, parties may request direct access, allowing the Constitutional Court to hear the matter immediately.
The ATM believes this case meets that threshold because it concerns the separation of powers between the judiciary, Parliament and the Presidency.
Zungula also relied on a previous Constitutional Court judgment to support his argument.
He referred to the landmark National Treasury v Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA) case, decided in 2012, in which the Constitutional Court overturned a High Court interim interdict that had temporarily blocked the implementation of Gauteng’s controversial e-toll system.
That judgment established that certain interim interdicts may be appealed where they produce significant legal consequences before the main dispute has even been decided.
According to Zungula, the current order similarly has a practical final effect because Parliament’s impeachment committee has already been prevented from carrying out its constitutional mandate.
He further argued that allowing the interdict to remain in place creates an uncomfortable precedent for executive accountability.
“Currently, there is no court hearing to determine the lawfulness of this order.”
He warned that delaying Parliament’s work also delays the implementation of previous Constitutional Court directives relating to the Phala Phala matter.
Meanwhile, the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party, which has also been critical of President Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala scandal, has indicated that it is seeking legal advice following the High Court ruling. However, the party has not yet confirmed whether it will formally join or launch its own appeal.
The dispute highlights an important constitutional question that extends beyond the Phala Phala controversy itself: Can a court temporarily stop Parliament from exercising one of its constitutional oversight powers while another legal challenge is still underway?
The answer could have lasting implications for how South Africa balances the powers of its three branches of government.
On one hand, courts have a duty to protect constitutional rights and ensure legal processes are conducted fairly. On the other, Parliament has a constitutional obligation to hold the executive accountable, including through impeachment where appropriate.
The Constitutional Court’s eventual response could therefore shape not only the future of the Phala Phala matter but also clarify the extent to which judicial intervention can temporarily suspend parliamentary oversight of a sitting President.
For young South Africans, the case is another reminder that constitutional democracy relies not only on elections, but also on institutions capable of holding those in power accountable. The outcome may ultimately define how quickly Parliament can act in future impeachment proceedings and where the balance lies between judicial oversight and parliamentary independence.