The Western Cape High Court has temporarily halted Parliament’s impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa, granting an interim interdict that prevents the National Assembly’s Section 89 impeachment committee from continuing with public hearings into the Phala Phala farm scandal until the President’s court challenge has been heard.
The ruling, delivered by Judge André Le Grange on Friday, does not determine whether President Ramaphosa should ultimately face impeachment. Instead, it temporarily pauses Parliament’s impeachment process while the court considers whether the Section 89 Independent Panel’s findings were legally and constitutionally sound. The President’s review application is scheduled to be heard in the Western Cape High Court from 2 to 4 September 2026.
An interdict is a court order that temporarily prevents a person or institution from taking a particular action until another legal process has been completed. In this instance, the order prevents Parliament’s impeachment committee from proceeding with public hearings while the President’s judicial review remains before the courts. The purpose of such an order is to preserve the status quo and avoid potentially irreversible consequences before a final legal determination has been made.
The court specifically ordered that the Speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza, and Makashule Gana, who chairs Parliament’s impeachment committee, are prohibited from proceeding with the committee’s work pending the outcome of Ramaphosa’s review application.
At the centre of the legal dispute is the Section 89 Independent Panel, a body established under Section 89 of the Constitution, which sets out the constitutional process for removing a President from office. Section 89 provides that the National Assembly may remove a sitting President on grounds of a serious violation of the Constitution or the law, serious misconduct, or an inability to perform the functions of office. Before Parliament can decide whether to establish a full impeachment inquiry, an independent panel is appointed to determine whether sufficient preliminary evidence exists to justify further proceedings.
Importantly, the panel does not determine guilt or innocence. Instead, its role is limited to assessing whether there is prima facie evidence. This legal term means that, based on the evidence available at that stage, there appears to be enough evidence to justify further investigation if that evidence remains uncontested. It does not amount to a finding that misconduct has been proven beyond doubt.
The Section 89 panel previously concluded that there was prima facie evidence suggesting President Ramaphosa may have violated the Constitution and the law in relation to the Phala Phala matter. It was this finding that prompted Parliament to establish an impeachment committee to conduct a more comprehensive inquiry.
President Ramaphosa disputes the panel’s conclusions and has approached the High Court seeking a judicial review of its findings. A judicial review differs from a criminal trial or an appeal. Rather than determining whether someone committed wrongdoing, a review examines whether a public body acted lawfully, followed the correct procedures, exercised its powers properly and reached a decision that was rational and consistent with the Constitution. If the court finds flaws in the panel’s process or reasoning, it may set aside or amend its findings.
The Phala Phala scandal, which first emerged publicly in 2022, centres on allegations surrounding the theft of a substantial amount of foreign currency reportedly concealed at President Ramaphosa’s private game farm in Limpopo. Questions have been raised regarding the origin of the money, whether it was properly declared, the reporting of the theft to law enforcement authorities and whether any constitutional or legal obligations were breached in the handling of the incident. The controversy has remained one of the most politically significant issues facing Ramaphosa’s presidency and has generated multiple investigations through various legal and oversight institutions.
The latest court ruling does not resolve any of those underlying allegations. Instead, it focuses solely on whether Parliament’s impeachment process should continue before the courts have ruled on the legality of the Section 89 panel’s findings.
Following the judgment, Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said President Ramaphosa welcomed the court’s decision while reaffirming his commitment to constitutional principles and accountability.
“The President reaffirms his respect of judicial independence and separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. The President will continue to cooperate with and abide by processes of accountability.”
The reference to the separation of powers reflects one of South Africa’s foundational constitutional principles. Under this doctrine, the powers of government are divided between the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary, each operating independently while providing oversight over one another. Courts therefore have the authority to review the lawfulness of parliamentary processes, while Parliament retains its constitutional responsibility to hold the Executive accountable.
The interim interdict means Parliament’s impeachment committee cannot proceed with witness testimony, evidence gathering or public hearings until the review application has been determined or the court issues further directions. Should the High Court ultimately dismiss Ramaphosa’s review, the impeachment committee could resume its work. Conversely, if the court sets aside the Section 89 panel’s findings, Parliament may be required to reconsider the legal basis upon which the impeachment process was initiated.
The case highlights the constitutional balance between judicial oversight and parliamentary accountability. While Parliament has the authority to investigate allegations against a sitting President, the courts remain responsible for ensuring that constitutional procedures are followed lawfully and fairly. The outcome of the review hearing in September is therefore expected to play a significant role in determining whether Parliament’s impeachment inquiry proceeds or whether aspects of the process must begin anew.
For now, the impeachment process has been temporarily suspended, with the focus shifting to the Western Cape High Court, where judges will consider whether the Section 89 panel acted within the bounds of the Constitution and the law when it concluded that sufficient evidence existed to justify an impeachment inquiry.