Impeachment Committee may oppose President's interdict application: Lufuno Nevondwe weighs in

[00:00:00]An independent legal advisor says the Western Cape division of the High Court has no jurisdiction to evaluate a ruling of the Constitutional Court. That's after President Cyril Ramaphosa approached the High Court last week filing an urgent interdict application to halt the impeachment process. He first wants a ruling on his application to review the section 89 independent panel report that found he had a prima facie case to answer over the Phala Phala matter. Parliament's impeachment committee, which was directed by last month's Constitutional Court judgment to investigate President Ramaphosa, has resolved to oppose his interdict application if National Assembly and also invite National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula to join in in that opposition.

[00:00:51]I'm I'm now joined by Constitutional Law expert from the University of Limpopo, Advocate Rufuno Rufuno Nevondwe. Good evening to you, Advocate and thank you for your time. So, this is quite intriguing. We'll get to this distinction between the jurisdiction of the High Court versus the Constitutional Court, but I just want to get your thoughts on the interdict itself, the urgent interdict itself. Are you surprised that the president is taking this step or were you surprised by the fact that he didn't launch it in the first place when he lodged his a review application against the panel report?

[00:01:33]>> Yes, I'm I'm not surprised. In fact, the president was supposed to have launched it together with his review application.

[00:01:41]He was supposed to also launch the agent interdict at the same time. So, we are not surprised. We were expecting it.

[00:01:50]And even Parliament was also expecting it because he reached out to Parliament in terms of the of the parliament to pose the impeachment processes.

[00:02:01]>> So, in terms of what part of what the president is saying about the perils that he foresees of parliament proceeding with the impeachment process, is that if he is successful at a later stage, then parliament will have undertaken all this work based on a report that is later reviewed and set aside.

[00:02:23]>> [laughter] >> Is that concern altruistic just based on I don't want you to waste your time or is it more about the president preserving what he believes are his rights in as far as this matter is concerned?

[00:02:37]>> Yeah, I think the president is preserving his rights because he has a right to review. He has already stated clearly his grounds for review and he believes that he has a case for a review. And he's hopeful that he will succeed in the in the review process. And also parliament at the same time, they are defending their constitutional mandate. Remember they have the mandate to hold the president accountable and the and also to implement the constitutional court judgment, which the judgment was very clear that the impeachment processes itself can only be halted unless another court can set aside the section 89 independent panel report. At this stage, we do not have that decision. So, the the constitutional court judgment stand and the impeachment committee of parliament must proceed to do its work until a decision is taken in terms of the urgent interdict or in terms of setting aside the section 89 independent panel report.

[00:03:44]>> So, just before we get to that point and I can tell where you're going with that question about unless and until the report is set aside on review. But one last question, what does the president need to do to be successful in his urgent interdict application? And and what does Parliament need to do and the Section 89 committee need to do to successfully oppose it?

[00:04:08]>> It is very clear the president must prove that his urgent interdict is urgent and he's he's going to suffer irreparable harm or his constitutional right is going to be undermined because his review application is still going to be held in September 2026. So, before the review process can be can be held, if the Parliament proceed with its its impeachment proceedings, the president will suffer prejudicial harm. He will also suffer his dignity will be will be affected and also irreparable harm.

[00:04:48]So, the the his argument is to say that Parliament must wait until the review court the High Court decide on the on the on the review application.

[00:04:58]>> Mhm. And I suppose the counter argument holds true for Parliament and the Section 89 committee. Let's get to that point then.

[00:05:07]We we are attributing a comment from an independent legal adviser who says the Western Cape division of the High Court has no jurisdiction to evaluate a ruling of the Constitutional Court. Is that really what's at play here or are you of the school of thought that says in its judgment the Constitutional Court per Maya CJ at paragraph 139 when it talked about that obligation arising to proceed to impeachment committee stage after a finding of a prima facie case by the independent panel report, that obligation arises and stands until and unless the report is set aside on review. So, when that was put in there, was it a review at the Constitutional Court that you believe they had in mind, or were they simply saying a review at any other court would have the effect of halting and setting aside this obligation that will have arisen?

[00:06:11]>> Yes, of course this matter is subject to different interpretation.

[00:06:15]Uh the the review referred in the Constitutional Court judgment was about the review of the Court of First Instance, which is the High Court in this matter. Remember, the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction in terms of Section 172 subsection 2A of the Constitution, the High Court uh share the power to make orders concerning the constitutional the constitutional validity of the president's conduct, and usually act as the Court of First Instance. So, so that's why I'm saying all these matter are subject to different interpretation.

[00:06:55]So, so I'm of the view that the president was correct to approach the High Court for a review, and the president was also correct to approach the High Court the Western Cape High Court for added for urgent interdict uh because he has uh uh uh he base his his action bases on the fact that his constitutional right will be undermined. He will also suffer irreparable harm, but that is subject to interpretation. We'll also hear from the from the Western Western Cape High Court in terms of their view.

[00:07:30]In terms of the fact that whether does the the court has the jurisdiction or not, but it is subject to interpretation. I believe that the Western Cape High Court has concurrent jurisdiction to hear this matter.

[00:07:46]>> All right, let's leave it there for this evening. Thank you for your time. That's advocate advocate Nevondo who is a constitutional law expert from the University of Limpopo weighing in around those developments with Parliament's Section 89 Committee saying that they will be opposing President Cyril Ramaphosa's application for an interdict of the work that that committee has already started doing. In fact, on the 24th of June, they are due to sit and consider their terms of reference.