Key Takeaways
- Parliament’s impeachment committee has decided to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application aimed at halting its work while he seeks a legal review of the Section 89 panel report on the Phala Phala theft.
- The committee will be joined by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), African Transformation Movement (ATM), and several other parties in lobbying Speaker Thoko Didiza to resist the interdict.
- An independent legal opinion from advocate William Mokhare SC advised the committee either to oppose the application outright or to file an explanatory affidavit, stressing the need to remain impartial while acknowledging the Constitutional Court’s directive to proceed.
- Opposition parties argue that allowing the high court to interdict a process stemming from the Constitutional Court undermines separation of powers and sets a dangerous precedent for future executive interference with parliamentary oversight.
- The ANC members on the committee urged caution, recommending that the panel defend its existence without delving into the merits of the underlying case to preserve impartiality.
- The committee plans to meet on 24 June 2026 to draft its terms of reference and elect leadership, continuing its work unless a court orders otherwise.
- If the interdict is granted, Ramaphosa could delay his impeachment hearing for years, avoiding scrutiny over the alleged mishandling of at least US $580,000 stolen from his Phala Phala farm in 2020.
Background of the Phala Phala Saga and the Section 89 Panel Findings
In November 2022, a Section 89 inquiry panel appointed by Parliament concluded that there was prima facie evidence President Cyril Ramaphosa may have violated the Constitution and committed serious misconduct regarding the theft of at least US $580,000 from his Phala Phala farm in 2020. The panel found that Ramaphosa had shown a deliberate intention not to investigate the theft openly. Although the African National Congress (ANC) used its parliamentary majority at the time to block the report from triggering an impeachment hearing, the Constitutional Court ruled in May 2026 that the National Assembly’s December 2022 vote to override the panel’s recommendations was irrational, unconstitutional, and invalid. The Court also struck down Rule 129I, which had permitted MPs to ignore the panel’s findings. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to Parliament for a proper impeachment process, prompting Ramaphosa to seek a legal review of the Section 89 report while simultaneously applying for an urgent interdict to stall the committee’s work.
Ramaphosa’s Urgent Interdict Application
On 12 June 2026, President Ramaphosa filed an urgent application in the Western Cape High Court seeking an interdict to prevent the impeachment committee from conducting any further work until his review application of the Section 89 panel’s findings is finalised. He argued that allowing the inquiry to proceed while the legal validity of the report remains disputed would cause “irreparable” political and reputational harm. Ramaphosa contended that he possesses a constitutional right not to face impeachment unless preceded by a lawful and independent report, and that the high court should preserve the status quo pending the outcome of his review.
Impeachment Committee’s Decision to Oppose the Interdict
At a meeting on 18 June 2026, the 31‑member impeachment committee voted, by majority, to oppose Ramaphosa’s interdict application. The committee resolved to join the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and African Transformation Movement (ATM), which had already declared their opposition, and to lobby Speaker Thoko Didiza to likewise resist the interdict. The decision reflects a broader consensus among opposition parties that the impeachment process must continue unimpeded, especially after the Constitutional Court’s explicit direction to proceed with the hearing.
Independent Legal Advocate’s Opinion
The committee sought an independent legal opinion from advocate William Mokhare SC. Mokhare outlined two possible courses: either oppose the interdict outright or file an explanatory affidavit detailing the committee’s concerns without formally opposing the application. He cautioned that, as an impartial body appointed to investigate the Section 89 panel’s findings, the committee should avoid expressing a view on the merits of the underlying case. However, he affirmed that the committee could lawfully assert the Constitutional Court’s directive to proceed with the impeachment hearing, emphasizing that all evidence would be scrutinised and that Ramaphosa would have an opportunity to present his defence.
Committee Chairperson’s Statement on Continuity
Chairperson Makashule Gana of the Rise Mzansi party affirmed that the committee would focus on matters within its control and would continue its work “until a court of law tells us otherwise.” He announced that the committee would convene as planned on 24 June 2026 to draft its terms of reference and elect its leadership, underscoring the body’s commitment to upholding its mandate regardless of the pending interdict application.
Opposition Parties’ Rationale for Supporting the Committee’s Stand
The EFF, led by Julius Malema, framed the opposition as a matter of public accountability, arguing that voters deserve transparency about the events on Ramaphosa’s farm and that the Constitutional Court’s ruling leaves no room for judicial interruption of the parliamentary process. Similar positions were taken by the ATM, DA, Bosa, ActionSA, ACDP, UDM, UAT, and FF Plus. These parties emphasized the need to defend parliamentary authority, uphold the separation of powers, and prevent a precedent whereby any future executive could simply obtain an interdict to halt oversight investigations. DA Chief Whip Glynnis Breytenbach warned that the committee must continue its work until an actual interdict is granted, while Bosa leader Dr Mmusi Maimane cautioned that failing to oppose the application would enable future executives to evade accountability through similar legal maneuvers.
Minority View and Caution from ANC Members
The ANC’s nine representatives on the committee expressed caution about directly opposing the President, with MP Mikateko Mahlaule suggesting the panel should defend its existence but avoid delving into the merits or demerits of the underlying case to preserve impartiality. The Patriotic Alliance’s Marlon Daniels took a minority stance, arguing that the legal opinion did not adequately address Ramaphosa’s application to review the Section 89 panel’s findings and that the impeachment should not proceed without first considering that review. The UDM’s Nqabayomzi Kwankwa warned that pursuing the interdict would send the committee on a “wild goose chase,” challenging the very body that created it, and urged any opposition to be channeled through the Speaker rather than the courts.
Procedural Next Steps and Potential Implications
The impeachment committee is set to meet on 24 June 2026 to finalize its terms of reference and elect its leadership, after which it will commence the drafting of the impeachment hearing proceedings. Should the high court grant Ramaphosa’s interdict, the committee’s work could be stalled for an extended period, potentially delaying accountability for the Phala Phala theft for years. Conversely, if the interdict is denied or overturned, the committee will proceed with the impeachment hearing, allowing Parliament to examine the Section 89 panel’s findings, hear Ramaphosa’s defence, and determine whether constitutional violations warrant further action. The outcome will serve as a critical test of South Africa’s commitment to the separation of powers and the ability of parliamentary oversight to withstand executive legal challenges.