South Africa’s (SA) President Cyril Ramaphosa’s bid to halt Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment process has come under intense scrutiny in the Western Cape Province High Court.
His legal team argued that the Independent Panel may have applied the wrong legal standard when it concluded that he had a case to answer in relation to the Phala Phala saga.
Appearing for Ramaphosa, Senior Counsel Advocate Wim Trengove told the court that the panel was required to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to justify the extraordinary step of launching impeachment proceedings against a sitting Head of State.
He argued that Ramaphosa is entitled to a process based on the correct legal test and that the validity of the panel’s findings must first be resolved before Parliament’s impeachment committee can proceed.
However, judge Matthew Francis questioned aspects of that argument, noting that the Independent Panel itself had acknowledged the limits of its mandate.
The panel expressly stated that it was not conducting a trial, resolving factual disputes or hearing oral evidence.
Instead, its role was confined to assessing the information placed before it and determining whether there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa t had a case to answer.
Western Cape High Court hears Ramaphosa’s urgent bid to halt Section 89 Impeachment process
