• President Cyril Ramaphosa has approached the Western Cape High Court with an urgent bid to halt his impeachment inquiry.
• The speaker and committee chair refused to pause the process.
• Ramaphosa argues that proceedings based on the challenged Ngcobo report would cause “irreparable harm”.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has launched an urgent application for a stay of his impeachment inquiry.

In an affidavit filed on Friday, Ramaphosa said he had “no choice” but to institute the application.

“This is because there is a possibility, and in fact a likelihood that the Impeachment Committee will begin the impeachment hearings before the court has made a decision on the review application.”

He was referring to an application he launched in the same court to review and set aside the Ngcobo report, which had recommended he face an impeachment inquiry.

He argued that this report is fundamentally flawed, saying the panel made several errors in law, among others.

READ | No delays to Phala Phala impeachment process, Parliament secretary insists

In his latest application, Ramaphosa argued that if the impeachment process is allowed to proceed on the basis of a report whose validity is being challenged, it would cause him irreparable harm and prejudice.

“I submit that, absent the interim interdictory relief, there is a high risk and in fact an inevitability of irreparable harm. This harm is neither speculative nor remote. It will arise immediately and directly from the commencement of the impeachment enquiry,” he said.

Should the report be found invalid, as he argues, Ramaphosa stated that the impeachment proceedings would have been “impermissible, wasteful and fruitless”.

Ramaphosa was careful to frame his application as limited in scope.

“I do not suggest that the National Assembly should be prevented from exercising its powers in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution,” he said.

He added: “The relief I seek is temporary and carefully circumscribed. I do not suggest that there should be any impediment to the Impeachment Committee readying itself to potentially proceed with its work once the review proceedings are determined.”

The court documents stated that in the review application, Ramaphosa contends that the panel materially misdirected itself, misconstrued relevant evidence, adopted incorrect interpretations of applicable legal principles, and arrived at conclusions that are susceptible to review.

READ | Phala Phala: Ramaphosa’s legal challenge to be heard in early September

“Whether these contentions are ultimately upheld is a matter for determination by the review court. At this point, the lawfulness and validity of the report are disputed in proceedings which are before this court,” his affidavit reads.

Ramaphosa states that foreseeing possible prejudice, his legal team wrote to the speaker and the chairperson of the Impeachment Committee, requesting them to stay the commencement of the impeachment hearing until the review application has been determined.

The speaker, however, responded to Ramaphosa’s attorneys, saying that committees of the National Assembly determine their own working arrangements and agenda, and then forwarded the letter to the Impeachment Committee chairperson, Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana.

“The State Attorney, on behalf of the chairperson, advised that my request was not acceded to, and that the Impeachment Committee is continuing with its preparations for the process,” Ramaphosa stated.

“The purpose of this application is thus to preserve the status quo and protect the integrity of the pending review proceedings, so that the review court may grant effective relief should it set aside the report.”

He argued that he had no other recourse but to interdict the impeachment process.

Ramaphosa argued that following the amendment of Rule 129I(3), which now provides that if a panel concludes that sufficient evidence exists, then the matter must be referred to the impeachment committee, the report has become crucial.

“In other words, a report by an independent panel established in terms of Rule 129D is no longer a mere stepping stone for the National Assembly to decide whether to have an impeachment enquiry,” he argued.

He then argued that if the report is fundamentally flawed, as the one central to his impeachment is, then it is important to determine its constitutional validity before it causes irreparable harm.

Arguing prima facie rights, Ramaphosa wrote that he has a constitutional right not to be subjected to an impeachment enquiry unless it is preceded by a report submitted by an independent panel established in terms of Rule 129D of the rules of the National Assembly, that concludes that sufficient evidence exists showing that the president committed the prohibited acts.

“It is not just about there being a valid report; it matters what the report finds.

“I also have a right to make an effective challenge to the validity of the report before irreversible consequences flow from the report and from the proceedings of the Impeachment Committee, which are founded on the report.”

Ramaphosa said the report was not merely part of the factual background to the impeachment proceedings but the foundational document upon which the proceedings rest.

Ramaphosa denied violating the Constitution or the law, or committing serious misconduct, as contemplated in Section 89 of the Constitution.

“At all times, I acted in good faith,” he said.

The Impeachment Committee’s next meeting has been scheduled for 24 June.

At its first meeting last Monday, the Impeachment Committee elected Gana as its chairperson.

There is still much work the committee must do before it can begin an impeachment hearing, including deciding on its terms of reference and appointing evidence leaders.