Lawyers representing uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) and United Africans Transformation (UAT) have argued that the Western Cape High Court lacks the jurisdiction to grant President Cyril Ramaphosa an interdict to halt the commencement of the impeachment process against him.
The President wants the Parliamentary process to be suspended pending the review of the Section 89 Independent Panel report.
The report found that Ramaphosa has a prima facie case to answer regarding the Phala Phala matter.
Advocate Dali Mpofu says the High Court is unable to stop the decision of the ConCourt.
The ConCourt ruled that the National Assembly acted irrationally when it voted against the implementation of the report and that impeachment proceedings should be instituted against the President.
Mpofu insisted in his arguments that the High Court has no jurisdiction on the decision of the Apex court.
“Now this court with the greatest respect cannot saying no, no, we hear what the Constitutional Court is saying. But we in the Cape High Court, we find that the inquiry may not proceed unless and until the report is set aside. It may, it must be stopped now. It’s not possible.”
Advocate Mpofu argued that the Constitutional Court ruled that the report must be implemented until it is set aside by the same court.
“So, what the Constitutional Court was saying was making even the rule of law. Rule of law says in impeachment proceedings, when once the independent committee says there is sufficient evidence for prima facie case, then the process must continue unless it is set aside.”
Mpofu told the court that the review application by Ramaphosa cannot be used as a justification to stop the proceedings of the Impeachment Committee for him to answer about the Phala Phala matter.
“All the Constitutional Court is saying is that that right of a review is not like everybody in the street who might have. In this situation once the Independent Panel says there is sufficient evidence, then you cannot deny the people of South Africa the process until it is set aside. In other words, if you have to suffer, quote unquote in that process until the outcomes, so be it basically because why? Because of the importance of the constitutional processes that we are engaged in.”
Mpofu says the report was not referred back to Parliament to be used as a decoration.
“Is it…in other words the Ngcobo Panel report, let me put it that way, is referred to the Impeachment Committee established in terms of the NA rules for what? For decoration to be put on there? No. It’s referred there to do that Mr. Mkhari was talking about in terms of section 237 of the constitution diligently and without delay proceedings with the inquiry and you have to read that paragraph seven together in terms of what we have said.”
Advocate Anton Katz, representing the ATM has warned the court, to be careful not to encroach in the terrain of Parliament by granting Ramaphosa the interdict to halt the impeachment process against him.
“If you grant the interdict, there is a suggestion that there is no harm to us in the few months asking the people of South Africa the separation of powers. That’s the harm. If you grant the interdict, there is a huge harm to the separation of powers. Don’t, we suggest cross your lane justices. We don’t want to do that. No, it’s not our intention to do that. We will stay in our lane. If you do grant the interdict my lord, you are crossing the lane to Parliament.”
t.
