Western Cape High Court To Review Parliamentary Report At Centre Of Ramaphosa Impeachment Bid

The Western Cape High Court will on Wednesday begin hearing a review application concerning the parliamentary report that recommended that President Cyril Ramaphosa could face impeachment.

The review will be heard by three eminent jurists and follows an application brought by Ramaphosa in May, shortly after the Constitutional Court ordered Parliament to commence impeachment proceedings against him.

The report was produced in 2022 by a three-member panel established after the African Transformation Movement (ATM) tabled an impeachment motion against Ramaphosa. The African National Congress (ANC) majority in Parliament subsequently rejected the report.

Ramaphosa had previously sought to challenge the lawfulness of the parliamentary process but later withdrew that application. His current case focuses on the findings and process followed by the panel.

Ramaphosa Challenges Panel's Assessment

In an affidavit before the court, Ramaphosa argues that the panel misunderstood its mandate, improperly evaluated the evidence before it and went beyond the four charges it had been appointed to consider.

The panel was appointed by then-Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula and was chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo. Retired judge Thokozile Masipa and Advocate Mahlape Sello were the other members.

The panel was tasked with examining allegations that Ramaphosa had breached his oath of office following revelations surrounding the theft of United States dollars from his Phala Phala farm in 2020.

The allegations arose after members of a police VIP protection unit pursued suspects linked to money stolen from the farm.

Ramaphosa maintains that the panel placed undue weight on what it considered to be a lack of explanations when reaching its conclusion that he could face impeachment.

Dispute Over Information Before Panel

Ramaphosa also challenges the material the panel relied on in reaching its conclusions.

According to his affidavit, the panel relied on hearsay, a confidential report from Namibian police and an audio recording whose authenticity had not been established.

He argues that the panel should first have considered whether the information placed before it was lawfully obtained and whether it was admissible for purposes of determining whether there was a basis for impeachment.

The High Court's review will therefore place the panel's mandate, assessment of the information before it and the legal treatment of that material under scrutiny.

The proceedings concern the lawfulness and validity of the parliamentary report and do not, in themselves, establish the allegations against Ramaphosa.

Constitutional Court Order And Parliamentary Process

The case follows the Constitutional Court's intervention requiring Parliament to proceed with impeachment proceedings against Ramaphosa.

The underlying dispute stems from the Section 89 process, through which Parliament can consider whether there are grounds to remove a president from office for serious misconduct or serious violation of the Constitution or the law.

The Western Cape High Court's consideration of Ramaphosa's application will determine whether the report withstands the legal challenges raised against it.