Five things to know about Cyril Ramaphosa’s interdict and the political fallout

The Western Cape High Court has granted President Cyril Ramaphosa an interim interdict, temporarily stopping parliament’s section 89 impeachment inquiry pending the outcome of his review application challenging the independent panel report on Phala Phala.

The decision has drawn sharply different reactions from political parties, with some welcoming it as a victory for due process and others accusing the president of delaying accountability.

Here are five things to know about today’s ruling:

• The court ruled that parliament’s section 89 impeachment committee cannot proceed with public hearings until Ramaphosa’s review application challenging the independent panel report has been decided. The ruling is temporary and does not determine whether the president should ultimately face impeachment.
• This legal battle stems from the infamous “Farmgate” scandal, which involved the 2020 theft of an estimated $580,000 in cash hidden inside a sofa at Ramaphosa’s private Phala Phala game farm. The full review of the Phala Phala independent panel report is scheduled to be argued in court from September 2-4. The impeachment process remains frozen until that judgment is delivered.
• ANC MP Mikateko Mahlaule welcomed the judgment, arguing that it reinforces the principle that every South African, including the president, has the right to approach the courts. He stressed that the judgment was not a finding on Ramaphosa’s guilt or innocence but simply paused the impeachment process until the review application is finalised.
• Several opposition parties criticised the judgment, saying it risked postponing parliament’s constitutional duty to hold the executive accountable. The EFF described the ruling as “really shocking”, arguing that the Constitutional Court had previously instructed parliament to proceed with the impeachment inquiry. The party accused Ramaphosa of having “a history of avoiding accountability”. The MK Party echoed those concerns, saying the president was using legal processes to delay the truth emerging about the Phala Phala matter. ATM leader Vuyo Zungula also argued that the application appeared aimed at delaying the impeachment process, while ActionSA warned that parliament’s oversight responsibilities risked becoming “hostage to procedural litigation”.
• Despite the temporary halt, several parties stressed that the section 89 process was far from over. DA chief whip Glynnis Breytenbach said the ruling only prevents the committee from holding public hearings and does not stop administrative work such as appointing evidence leaders, finalising witness lists and settling the committee’s terms of reference. The IFP similarly said Parliament’s constitutional obligation to conduct oversight remains intact, while the presidency said Ramaphosa respects the judgment, judicial independence and the separation of powers and will continue co-operating with all accountability processes.

Sowetan