ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula says president Cyril Ramaphosa is advancing a ‘credible case’ in his challenge to the Section 89 process, while cautioning that Parliament’s impeachment inquiry has merely been paused but remains very much alive.
Addressing the media on Tuesday, Mbalula urged South Africans to distinguish between the interim court order obtained by Ramaphosa and the merits of the impeachment process, arguing that the Western Cape High Court’s ruling was aimed at protecting due process rather than determining the substance of the case.
“We know now the president is advancing a credible case, and it must be given its space and not be undermined or rushed over,” Mbalula said.
He stressed that the court had not halted Parliament’s Section 89 process indefinitely, but had merely paused public hearings pending the outcome of Ramaphosa’s review application, which is set down for hearing from 2 to 4 September.
“Let us set out plainly what the court actually said so the matter can be read calmly,” Mbalula said.
He said the court had merely granted an interim order allowing Ramaphosa’s review application to be heard before the parliamentary committee could proceed, adding that it had not pronounced on the merits of the impeachment matter.
“The court did not decide who is right or wrong on the substance; it protected the process so that it is done correctly,” he said.
He maintained that the Constitutional Court’s judgment delivered on 8 May remained binding and that Parliament’s Section 89 process would continue once the courts had ruled on Ramaphosa’s review application.
“The parliamentary process remains alive. It will continue once the court has spoken,” Mbalula said.
The ANC secretary-general also accused opposition parties of deliberately misrepresenting the legal position by creating the impression that the Constitutional Court had already determined that Ramaphosa should be impeached.
“The distortion, the opportunism that we have seen has not worked because the distortion was one that the Constitutional Court have decided that the president must be impeached, and what was not explained is that there is no such decision of court,” he said.
Mbalula also criticised what he described as poor public interpretation of the judgment, arguing that South Africans deserved accurate legal information rather than politically motivated commentary.
“South Africa needs information so that people can make up their minds because they are not lawyers, but they must make up their minds being informed correctly about the interpretation of the court judgment,” he said.
He said political parties would inevitably seek to score political points ahead of elections but insisted the ANC had learnt from its past mistakes.
“We will not defend anything that is unlawful,” he said.
Mbalula also defended National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza against a motion of no confidence, saying she had acted appropriately by not taking sides while litigation concerning the Section 89 process was before the courts.
The motion was tabled by the EFF.
However, Mbalula argued that punishing the Speaker for refusing to act in a partisan manner would undermine the constitutional role of the office.
The comments come days after Judge André le Grange granted Ramaphosa an interim interdict preventing Parliament’s Section 89 committee from proceeding with public hearings into the Phala Phala matter pending the determination of his review application.
Ramaphosa argued that allowing the parliamentary process to continue before the review was decided would expose him to irreparable reputational harm and undermine the fairness of the judicial process.
Parliament had opposed the application, arguing that the committee was still engaged in preparatory work and should be allowed to continue unless directed otherwise by the court.
However, not everyone has interpreted the court’s intervention in the same light.
Speaking during the launch of the recently established Vuka Azania movement last week, advocate Muzi Sikhakhane argued that the ruling reinforced what he described as a judiciary that continued to protect those in political power.
“The judiciary continues to protect those in power in South Africa,” Sikhakhane said.
He argued that the continued legal contestation surrounding the Phala Phala matter reflected a deeper moral crisis.
“The fact that we sit here in this country and we are debating whether it is wrong for a head of state to have millions of dollars in a couch… the fact that we’re even debating it tells you the level of depravity in society,” he said.
Sikhakhane said the judgment strengthened the argument that South Africa required constitutional renewal.
“It bolsters the points that we make, that we need newness. We need to create a transitional constitution that takes seriously issues of wrongdoing in the country,” he said.
He argued that issues which should be self-evidently unacceptable had instead become prolonged legal and political disputes.
“It shouldn’t be a debate,” Sikhakhane said.
Sikhakhane argued that South Africa required a renewed constitutional framework capable of holding those in public office fully accountable.