ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula has defended President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to seek an urgent court interdict against Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment inquiry, arguing that the ANC is simply following constitutional processes and not shielding the president from accountability.
Speaking during a media briefing on Thursday following the outcomes of the ANC’s National Working Committee (NWC), Mbalula said the party’s position was guided by the need to ensure Parliament proceeds on a sound legal foundation while related court processes remain unresolved.
The remarks come as Ramaphosa seeks an urgent order from the Western Cape High Court to halt the work of Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee pending the outcome of his main review application, which is due to be heard in September.
The president is challenging the findings of the independent panel chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, which concluded that there was prima facie evidence that he may have violated the Constitution and the law in relation to the Phala Phala matter.
Ramaphosa argues that the panel exceeded its mandate, relied on hearsay evidence and reached conclusions that should be reviewed by the courts before Parliament proceeds with a full impeachment inquiry.
Mbalula said the ANC supported the decision by National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza to file a notice to abide by the court’s decision rather than oppose the president’s application.
“The speaker stands above this contest. The institution of the National Assembly must remain neutral, and the speaker is properly preserving that neutrality by filing a notice to abide the decision of the court,” Mbalula said.
“The speaker has acted correctly, constitutionally and with complete propriety throughout, and the ANC stands fully behind the office and the person of the speaker.”
Mbalula also addressed questions around the ANC’s decision to initially file a notice indicating its intention to participate in the urgent application before later withdrawing it.
He said the move was procedural and intended to preserve the party’s position while it considered legal advice.
According to Mbalula, the court’s case management directive issued on 18 June required parties wishing to intervene in the matter to file notices by 19 June, leaving little time for consultation.
He said the ANC eventually settled on participating only as a friend of the court on procedural matters and not on the merits of the Phala Phala case itself.
“Our considered position was that the ANC will come in only as a friend of the court, confined strictly to questions of process and sequencing under the Constitution, and taking no position whatsoever on the merits,” he said.
Mbalula argued that Parliament should not proceed with a full impeachment inquiry while the legal validity of the underlying Section 89 report remains before the courts.
“The foundational report on which this process rests is itself the subject of review before the court to be heard in September,” he said.
“Our considered view is that it cannot be sound for Parliament to charge ahead with a full inquiry on a foundation that a competent court may yet set aside.”
He said allowing the review process to run its course would prevent Parliament from potentially conducting proceedings based on findings that could later be invalidated.
“It is better to allow another competent forum to do its work so that Parliament proceeds once properly and on solid ground, rather than twice wastefully and on contested ground that is not settled.”
Mbalula rejected suggestions that Ramaphosa was using the courts to delay the impeachment process.
“There is no obstruction, no delay. We respect the Constitution. What we are following is not the man, it is the process itself of Section 89,” he said.
The ANC’s position stands in contrast to that of Parliament’s newly established 31-member Section 89 Impeachment Committee chaired by Makashule Gana.
The committee has voted to oppose Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application, arguing that it is carrying out a Constitutional Court mandate and that its work should continue despite the pending litigation.
The committee has already begun appointing forensic, data and exchange-control experts, alongside an evidence leader, to assist with the inquiry.
Opposition parties, including the Economic Freedom Fighters and uMkhonto weSizwe Party, have also maintained that Ramaphosa must personally testify before the committee and cannot be represented by a legal proxy during proceedings.
Political parties have until 10 July to submit written comments on the committee’s draft terms of reference.
The urgent interdict application is scheduled to be heard in the Western Cape High Court on 15 and 16 July.
Should Ramaphosa succeed, the Section 89 inquiry could be paused until after the court hears his substantive review application in September.
Mbalula said the ANC would accept whatever outcome emerges from the judicial process but insisted that constitutional procedures must be respected.
“If the president loses the review, it is another matter. If he wins the review, that is equally another matter that must be addressed,” he said.
“The review is set for September. The courts have said the review will be heard on that date, and then after that judgment will be passed. So why should the other process run ahead of the other and not reinforce each other?”