- The majority found Ramaphosa established a prima facie right that deserves protection while his review application is heard.
- Judges ruled that Parliament may hold the President accountable, but only through a process that complies with the Constitution.
- The court held that allowing impeachment hearings to proceed before the review could cause irreversible harm to both Ramaphosa and the rule of law.
President Cyril Ramaphosa's victory in the High Court in Cape Town was not based on a finding that he is innocent of wrongdoing in the Phala Phala matter.
Instead, the majority concluded that the legality of the process leading to Parliament's impeachment inquiry remains open to serious legal challenge and should be decided before public impeachment hearings are allowed to proceed.
The Full Bench, comprising Acting Deputy Judge President Andre Le Grange, Judge Donovan Davis and Judge David Francis, split two to one. Judge Le Grange and Judge Davis granted the interim interdict, while Judge Francis dissented.
Their judgment reveals seven key reasons why the court sided with the President.
1. The court found Ramaphosa has a serious review case
The starting point for the majority was not whether Ramaphosa would ultimately win his review application, but whether he had shown a legal right deserving interim protection. The judges found he had.
Judge Davis concluded that the President had raised serious questions to be tried concerning the legality of Parliament's impeachment process. Those questions, he said, should be answered by the review court rather than during urgent proceedings.
The majority therefore found that Ramaphosa had established a prima facie right, a legal threshold requiring him to show that his challenge is arguable, even if it remains open to doubt.
2. The panel may have applied the wrong legal test
The central dispute concerns Rule 129G of the National Assembly Rules and the role of the independent panel that considered the Phala Phala allegations. Ramaphosa argues the panel's task was limited to deciding whether sufficient evidence existed to justify an impeachment inquiry.
Instead, he says, the panel effectively concluded that he had a case to answer by weighing disputed evidence and making findings that should properly be left to an impeachment committee.
The majority did not decide that issue in Ramaphosa's favour. However, it found the argument sufficiently persuasive to warrant full consideration during the review proceedings. That finding became one of the strongest reasons for granting temporary relief.
3. Parliament must act lawfully
The judges stressed throughout that Parliament unquestionably has the constitutional authority to investigate and, if justified, remove a President from office. However, they said accountability cannot come at the expense of legality.
If the review court later finds that the independent panel misunderstood its mandate or produced an unlawful report, allowing impeachment hearings to proceed beforehand could undermine the legitimacy of the entire process.
Judge Le Grange agreed that Parliament may hold the President accountable, but only through procedures that comply with the Constitution.
4. The majority accepted the harm could be irreversible
Perhaps the biggest difference between the majority and the dissent concerned the question of irreparable harm.
Judge Francis believed Ramaphosa would still have opportunities to defend himself during the parliamentary process and that any reputational harm would not justify stopping Parliament from performing its constitutional duties.
Judges Davis and Le Grange reached the opposite conclusion. They found that once witnesses testify publicly and allegations are aired before Parliament, the damage cannot simply be undone if the review later succeeds.
Judge Davis reasoned that no court can erase the public spectacle of impeachment hearings or reverse the political consequences that flow from them. Even if the panel report were later set aside, the reputational harm would already have occurred.
5. The rule of law weighed heavily in Ramaphosa's favour
The majority also introduced what it described as rule of law harm. The judges held that constitutional damage occurs not only when an individual's rights are infringed, but also when public institutions proceed based on a process that may later be declared unlawful.
Allowing impeachment hearings to continue before the legality of the panel's report is determined could weaken confidence in constitutional governance. For the majority, protecting the rule of law was therefore just as important as protecting Ramaphosa's personal rights.
6. The balance of convenience favoured a temporary pause
The court also weighed the competing public interests. On one hand stood Parliament's constitutional duty to hold the Executive accountable. On the other stood the possibility that Parliament would conduct public impeachment hearings based on a report that may later be declared unlawful.
The majority concluded that postponing the hearings for a limited period causes less constitutional harm than allowing a potentially defective process to continue. If Ramaphosa ultimately loses the review, Parliament will remain free to resume the impeachment inquiry.
The judges therefore found that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo until the review is decided.
7. The court rejected every preliminary objection
Before considering the merits, the majority dismissed several procedural objections raised by the respondents.
They argued that the application was not urgent, that the High Court lacked jurisdiction because Parliament was implementing a Constitutional Court order, that the matter had become moot because the impeachment committee had already been established, and that the application amounted to an abuse of process. The majority rejected each of those arguments.
It held that the review remains alive, that the High Court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief pending that review, and that preventing public hearings from commencing preserves the position without deciding the merits of the review itself.
Why one judge disagreed
Judge Francis would have dismissed Ramaphosa's application. He found the President's review prospects were weak, concluded that any reputational harm was not irreparable, and held that stopping Parliament from performing its constitutional oversight role would cause greater constitutional harm than allowing the impeachment process to continue.
In his view, the balance of convenience favoured Parliament rather than the President.
A victory based on constitutional process
The Full Bench therefore ordered that the Speaker of the National Assembly and the chairperson of the impeachment committee may not proceed with public impeachment hearings under Rule 129M until Ramaphosa's review application has been decided.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
