Constitutional Court Dismisses ATM's Urgent Ramaphosa Impeachment Appeal
- The Constitutional Court refused to urgently hear an appeal by ATM leader Vuyolwethu Zungula over President Ramaphosa's impeachment proceedings
- Chief Justice Mandisa Maya's panel cited a pending Western Cape High Court ruling that could render the dispute irrelevant
- The case centres on an interim interdict that halted the Section 89 impeachment committee's inquiry into the Phala Phala farm theft scandal
PAY ATTENTION: Mark Briefly News as a preferred source, and our content will appear higher in your Google feed!
Source: Getty Images
SOUTH AFRICA — The Constitutional Court has rejected an urgent application by African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyolwethu Zungula to fast-track an appeal over President Cyril Ramaphosa's impeachment proceedings, ruling that no sufficient case existed to warrant the court's intervention at this stage.
The order was issued on 12 August 2026, following an application for direct access brought by Zungula and the ATM as first and second applicants. President Ramaphosa, the Speaker of the National Assembly, and the Chairperson of the Impeachment Committee were named as respondents, alongside the Economic Freedom Fighters, uMkhonto weSizwe Party, and United Africans Transformation.
Why the Constitutional Court stepped back
The panel, chaired by Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, determined that it was not in the interests of justice to hear the matter on an urgent basis. The court's reasoning centred on an imminent judgment expected from the Western Cape High Court, which is set to rule on a judicial review application brought by President Ramaphosa.
PAY ATTENTION: You can now search for all your favourite news and topics on Briefly News.
That pending ruling, the Constitutional Court concluded, is likely to resolve the dispute before the apex court even needs to weigh in. The court also refused leave to file a replying affidavit by the fifth and sixth respondents. No costs order was granted.
Phala Phala inquiry on hold
The impeachment proceedings at the heart of the matter relate to the Section 89 committee tasked with investigating the Phala Phala farm theft saga. In July 2026, the Western Cape High Court granted an interim interdict pausing the committee's work, pending the outcome of Ramaphosa's review of the independent panel report into the incident. It was that interdict which Zungula and the ATM sought to overturn through their direct access application to the Constitutional Court.
Read the original post by journalist Zoleka Qodashe that reported the ruling:
Netizens react
South Africans reacted to the dismissal on social media, with opinions largely divided along familiar political lines.
@malalaveve wrote:
"Thank you, Speaker Thoko Didiza, for saving taxpayers' funds by denying engagement in a frivolous case where the prospects of success were next to zero. Well done, Thoko Didiza. How do you try and overturn an Interim Interdict from the start?"
@pandelindo said:
"Those pavement lawyers will now insult the constitutional court when the issue was so obvious. Let the man challenge the report and wait for the outcome of the review. That impeachment committee is just wasting taxpayers' money in a country suffering the worst unemployment."
@CassamiaBonjour remarked:
"The 'courts are with Ramaphosa' brigade will have a long day."
@that_Lema added:
"One didn't need to be a law expert to know that this frivolous application would be denied by the CC."
@Muluvhumamali offered a brief assessment:
"Can't defeat the incumbent. Impossible."
PAY ATTENTION: Follow Briefly News on Twitter and never miss the hottest topics! Find us at @brieflyza!
Source: Briefly News
