Ramaphosa opposes urgent appeal in Impeachment Committee case

Ramaphosa says that the applicants do not show that their applications are urgent.

Ramaphosa opposes urgent appeal in Impeachment Committee case

President Cyril Ramaphosa is opposing the urgent direct appeal to the Constitutional Court by Parliament’s Impeachment Committee and others.

They are seeking clarity on the Western Cape High Court’s judgment almost two weeks ago that halted the work of the committee.

The committee can only do administrative work, pending Ramphosa’s application to review the Section 89 Independent Panel report, which will be heard in September.

The Impeachment Committee has joined the African Transformation Movement, the Economic Freedom Fighters, and the uMkhonto we Sizwe Party in their appeal of the judgment to the Constitutional Court.

The parties argue that they want clarity on an interdict that overturned a Constitutional Court ruling, saying the interdict is far-reaching and damaging to the separation of powers doctrine to hold the president accountable.

They also question the jurisdiction of the high court to deal with a constitutional matter like this.

In his answering affidavit, Ramaphosa states, among others, that the applicants do not show that their applications are urgent, make no case for direct access to the Constitutional Court, and that the interest of justice does not favour the leave to appeal against an interim order.

Meanwhile, judgment in the Phala Phala farm theft case will be delivered on the 2nd of November in the Modimolle Regional Court in Limpopo.

The defense lawyers and the prosecution have concluded their final arguments.

The accused, Immanuwela David, the Joseph siblings – Froaliana and Ndilinasho – are being tried for the theft of 580,000 US dollars from Ramaphosa’s farm in Bela-Bela in February 2020.

Froliana, a former domestic worker at the farm, is suspected to have tipped the other accused about the existence of foreign currency hidden inside a sofa.

One of the defense lawyers, Advocate Relleng Masipa argued that his client, Froliana, was not in the vicinity of the farm on the day of the theft.