The EFF and ATM have moved to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent bid to stop Parliament’s impeachment inquiry, saying the process should continue unless a court orders otherwise.
Ramaphosa is seeking to interdict the Section 89 impeachment committee from starting its hearings while his court challenge to the Independent Panel report is pending. The EFF says it will defend the Constitutional Court’s ruling requiring Parliament to establish the committee, while ActionSA also says the inquiry should proceed and legal analyst Modidima Maanya says Parliament is not legally obliged to pause the process.
The ATM has advised Ramaphosa’s legal representatives that it was opposing the urgent application.
“Although our clients intend to advance the argument that the application is not urgent, and that any urgency may have been self-created, they request that the matter be heard on an expedited basis during the week of 22 June 2026,” said Asherson Attorneys.
The ATM legal team also said one day should be sufficient for the hearing of the application.
“Our client’s firm view is that this application, by its nature, requires the court to deal with it and dispose of it as soon as possible.”
In his review application papers, Ramaphosa said his application was not to prevent the Impeachment Committee from exercising its powers.
“The issue is whether the National Assembly and the Impeachment Committee should exercise those powers at a time there is a legal dispute as to whether they actually have such powers, because the process is triggered by the report whose validity is presently the subject of review proceedings before this court.”
ActionSA’s Lerato Ngobeni said her party rejected Ramaphosa’s urgent application to interdict the Impeachment Committee from commencing its work.
Agreeing with the EFF, Ngobeni said the application does not suspend Parliament’s duty to hold Ramaphosa accountable.
“ActionSA remains firmly of the view that the Section 89 Committee must proceed with its work unless and until a competent court orders otherwise,” she said.
Legal analyst Modidima Maanya said he was not surprised by Ramaphosa’s decision to seek to interdict the impeachment process, as he had indicated his intention.
Maanya said there is no obligation in law for Parliament to accede to his demand.
“It is at the discretion of Parliament to put the process on hold pending the review,” he said.
Maanya further said that as a matter of law, the president did not have the right to get the interdict just because he had taken the Independent Panel report on review.
“He will have to make out a strong case,” he said.
Political analyst Sandile Swana said the interdict application was characteristic of ANC leaders to engage in Stalingrad strategy.
Swana said Parliament has guidance for the court ruling that they must continue with the inquiry, and the report of the Independent Panel still stands until set aside by the court.
“They have to follow the spirit and letter of what the Constitutional Court has told them to do,” he added.
Another political analyst, Professor Dirk Kotze said Ramaphosa sought urgent relief to avoid being jeopardised should the report be set aside when evidence has been led.
“We don’t know whether the interdict will be granted or not. That is very much uncertain,” he said.
Kotze also said Parliament had no choice but to proceed with the inquiry because of the instruction from the apex court.
“We don’t know how long it will take to review the panel’s report,” he added.