NATIONAL NEWS - In an urgent bid to restore parliamentary oversight, the EFF have petitioned the Constitutional Court to overturn a Western Cape High Court ruling that halted Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Ramaphosa emerged victorious after his interdict application to halt Parliament’s impeachment process relating to the Phala Phala scandal was successful.

The Western Cape High Court in Cape Town delivered its ruling on Friday, following two days of argument heard last week before Judges André le Grange, Matthew Francis and Diane Davis.

In a founding affidavit deposed by EFF President Julius Malema, the party seeks to join the urgent application already filed by Vuyo Zungula and the African Transformation Movement (ATM).

Legal battle

The legal battle centres on whether the president can utilise the courts to suspend a constitutional process designed to hold him accountable while he reviews the independent Panel Report.

The dispute arises from a Western Cape High Court majority decision that stayed “public impeachment hearings” pending the president’s review of the Panel Report. 

The EFF strongly opposes this, aligning with the minority judgment of Francis J, who observed that the Panel Report remains valid and operative “unless and until set aside”.

Ramaphosa review application

According to the EFF, a mere review application cannot dislodge this status, and the Impeachment Committee remains entitled to rely on the report, which found a “prima facie case for the Impeachment Committee to consider”.

At the heart of the EFF’s appeal is the argument that the High Court’s interim interdict severely violates the separation of powers.

The EFF contends that the order is, in substance, a “constitutional interdict” that “temporarily immobilises Parliament from carrying out its core and exclusive constitutional function”.

Holding executive to account

Malema argues that holding the Executive to account is “primarily and exclusively the function of Parliament”.

Consequently, the EFF warns of immediate constitutional damage.

“Every second that the order operates, Parliament’s constitutional accountability function is curtailed”.

‘OUTA principle’

The EFF further accuses the High Court majority of misapplying the landmark OUTA principle. The majority justified its intrusion by finding that the decision to hold the President accountable was not a “policy-laden polycentric” one.

The EFF calls this “the wrong question,” explaining that policymaking belongs to the Executive, whereas holding the Executive to account belongs to Parliament.

“Instead, the court should have asked “how fundamentally is it Parliament’s function to hold the President accountable?” Because this function lies at the “heartland, primary and exclusive domain of Parliament,” the court should have been highly disinclined to intervene.”

Rule of law

Additionally, the EFF challenges the High Court’s framing of the rule of law. The majority ruled that “Accountability cannot function above the rule of law”.

In response, the EFF maintains that “the separation of powers is an instance of the rule of law, and that the two cannot be set against each other”.

They argue that “accountability too is a rule of law principle” and that pitting these concepts against one another is an “inherent contradiction and inconsistency” fatal to the judgment.

‘Great national importance’

The EFF emphasises that the matter is of “great national importance” and requires “prompt attention”.

“Leaving the impeachment process “suspended in mid-air” harms the public interest and undermines constitutional democracy.

Unless the Constitutional Court intervenes, the EFF warns that the majority’s reasoning will allow any constitutional office-bearer to halt accountability processes simply by launching a review and alleging reputational or “rule of law” harm.

Article: Caxton publication, The Citizen

‘We bring you the latest Garden Route, Hessequa, Karoo news’