Western Cape High Court Grants Cyril Ramaphosa Interdict to Halt Phala Phala Impeachment Hearings

• The Western Cape High Court ruled in favour of President Cyril Ramaphosa in a case tied to the Phala Phala farm scandal
• Judge Andre Le Grange interdicted National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza and committee chair Makashule Gana from continuing proceedings
• The impeachment committee had been due to meet next week to finalise its terms of reference before the court stepped in

SOUTH AFRICA — The Western Cape High Court has issued an interdict blocking Parliament's impeachment committee from conducting public hearings into President Cyril Ramaphosa's Phala Phala farm scandal.

According to eNCA, Judge Andre Le Grange delivered the short ruling on Friday, interdicting National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza and impeachment committee chairperson Makashule Gana from proceeding with the inquiry. The suspension remains in force pending the final determination of Ramaphosa's judicial review application.

Phala Phala inquiry frozen before it could begin

The ruling arrives at a critical moment for the parliamentary process. The impeachment committee had been scheduled to convene next week to finalise the terms of reference governing the inquiry, but those plans are now on hold indefinitely.

Read also

Phala Phala interdict bid 'will fail', Says Vuyo Zungula Ahead of Court Date

The committee was established after a Section 89 independent panel found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated the Constitution and applicable law in connection with the Phala Phala scandal. That finding triggered a formal parliamentary process to examine whether grounds for impeachment existed.

Ramaphosa has challenged the Section 89 panel's findings in court, arguing that the judicial review must be resolved before Parliament can proceed. Friday's ruling validates that position, at least temporarily, by preventing any further parliamentary steps until the court has concluded its review of the panel's report.

What happens next?

The interdict does not represent a final judgement on whether the impeachment process is lawful. It is a temporary measure designed to preserve the status quo while the judicial review plays out. Once the court reaches a final determination on the review application, Parliament will learn whether and how it may proceed with the inquiry. The Phala Phala matter stems from allegations that Ramaphosa concealed a significant theft of foreign currency from his game farm in Limpopo, raising questions about his fitness for office under Section 89 of the Constitution.

Read also

Ramaphosa clears Andrew Chauke after inquiry into political interference claims

View a tweet about the ruling on X here:

SA debates state covering Ramaphosa's legal bills

In a related article, Briefly News reported on the ongoing legal battle involving President Cyril Ramaphosa and the State's decision to cover the majority of his legal fees during his impeachment inquiry against Parliament. The situation has ignited a heated debate among South Africans regarding the appropriateness of using public funds for a president's personal legal defence related to actions taken on private property.

Source: Briefly News