- The MK Party and United Africans Transformation have lost their bid to appeal the interim interdict that paused the impeachment process.
- Judge M Francis ruled that the statutory requirements for leave to appeal were not met.
- Parliament’s impeachment committee can continue its preparatory work, but public hearings are still on hold.
The Umkhonto weSizwe Party and United Africans Transformation have failed in their attempt to overturn the interim court order that suspended public hearings in Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The High Court in Cape Town refused their application for leave to appeal, meaning the July interdict remains in place. That ruling stopped the Speaker of the National Assembly and the chairperson of the impeachment committee from holding public hearings until Ramaphosa’s review of the Independent Panel’s report is finalised.
A full bench of Acting Deputy Judge President A Le Grange, Judge M Francis, and Judge DM Davis presided. Judge Francis wrote the court’s decision.
Court says all legal requirements must be met
Judge Francis wrote that leave to appeal can only be granted if all three requirements in Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act are satisfied. “The structure of the section matters. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are not alternatives,” Judge Francis wrote. He added that the requirements are cumulative, not alternatives.
Judge Francis said the applicants had not met the statutory threshold. He wrote, “The threshold is demanding” and that a reasonable prospect of success requires “a sound rational basis for concluding that the appeal has a realistic chance of success.”
Appeal would have no practical effect
A key finding in the judgment was that Ramaphosa’s review is already set for hearing from 2 to 4 September. This makes it very unlikely that the Supreme Court of Appeal would decide the matter before the interim interdict lapses.
The court assumed, in the applicants’ favour, that the interim order could be appealed. But it found this question did not need to be decided because the application failed on the statutory test.
Judge Francis concluded that setting aside an order likely to expire before an appeal is heard would serve no purpose. The interim interdict will automatically fall away once the judgment is delivered in the review proceedings.
Public hearings remain on hold
The court rejected the idea that Parliament’s impeachment process had stopped completely. It found that the order only affects the public hearing stage of the inquiry.
“The order is narrow. It restrains only the holding of public hearings under rule 129M and leaves the Committee free to continue with its preparatory activities,” Judge Francis said.
This means the impeachment committee can keep doing administrative and preparatory work, including resolving any outstanding procedural issues. But it cannot hold public hearings until the review is decided.
Constitutional questions left unresolved
The MK Party argued that the case raised important constitutional questions about the courts’ power to restrain Parliament’s accountability processes, and about the legal test for interim interdicts against the exercise of public power.
Judge Francis acknowledged these were important issues. But he said they were not a compelling reason to hear an appeal, since the practical subject matter would likely disappear before an appellate court could make a ruling.
The court also noted that the Constitutional Court had already refused direct leave to appeal about the same interim order. The court said this was relevant, but not decisive.
The question of costs for the leave to appeal application will be decided by the court that hears Ramaphosa’s review.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
