Opposition Advocates Argue Western Cape High Court Cannot Block Ramaphosa Impeachment Inquiry

• Advocates Dali Mpofu and Anton Katz argued that the Western Cape High Court has no jurisdiction to halt President Ramaphosa's parliamentary impeachment process
• Mpofu told the court that blocking proceedings revived by the Constitutional Court would amount to an overreach of judicial authority
• Katz warned the bench that granting the interdict would severely compromise the separation of powers between the judiciary and Parliament

WESTERN CAPE— Legal representatives for several opposition parties told the Western Cape High Court on Tuesday that it has no authority to freeze President Cyril Ramaphosa's parliamentary impeachment inquiry, warning that doing so would breach the constitutional boundary separating the judiciary from the legislature.

Advocate Dali Mpofu, appearing on behalf of the uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) and United Africans Transformation (UAT), argued that the court cannot interdict a process that the Constitutional Court itself revived. The apex court had previously ruled that the National Assembly acted irrationally when it voted down the Section 89 Independent Panel report, effectively ordering that proceedings must continue.

Read also

Phala Phala inquiry: ATM's Vuyo Zungula accuses Ramaphosa of trying to evade accountability

High Court lacks jurisdiction, Mpofu argues

Mpofu submitted that the rules are clear: once an independent panel establishes a prima facie case, the democratic process must run its course and can only be halted if set aside by a competent court. He further argued that Ramaphosa's pending review application does not provide sufficient grounds to delay the Impeachment Committee's work.

Separation of powers warning from Katz

Advocate Anton Katz, acting for the African Transformation Movement (ATM), took aim at the constitutional implications of granting the interdict. He urged the bench to remain within its proper constitutional role, cautioning that halting the parliamentary process would represent a serious encroachment on Parliament's constitutionally assigned duties. Katz was firm in his submission that the court should refrain from crossing into legislative territory.

The application before the Western Cape High Court seeks to freeze the impeachment inquiry while a separate review application by Ramaphosa is pending. Opposition parties contend that no legal basis exists for a lower court to halt proceedings that were set in motion by the country's highest court.

Read also

Fadiel Adams takes shots at General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi after AD Hoc findings

MK Party loses case against Ramaphosa

In a related article, Briefly News reported on the Pretoria High Court's recent dismissal of the MK Party's case against President Cyril Ramaphosa, emphasising the party's ongoing legal challenges and reactions from the South African public. The MK Party, led by Jacob Zuma, faces mounting criticism as it continues to struggle in its legal pursuits, prompting questions about the effectiveness of its legal strategy and the reputation of its attorney, Dali Mpofu.

Source: Briefly News