Constitutional Court of South Africa delivers a landmark ruling

Ajouté : 2026-05-09

[00:00:00]The constitutional court of South Africa delivered a landmark ruling that effectively revived the Palapala impeachment process against President Sir Raaposam. The court found that parliament acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally when it voted in December 2022 to block a formal inquiry into the scandal. Before we get some insights from legal an analyst advocate, let's take a look at yesterday's Concord ruling.

[00:00:26]>> The conclusion is this.

[00:00:30]The effect of the three judgments is as follows.

[00:00:36]This court a unanimously finds that it has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the challenge to the validity of rule 129.

[00:00:48]By a majority finds that it does not have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the challenge to the NA vote. C by a majority concludes that rule 129 I is inconsistent with the constitution and invalid. D by a majority concludes that the NA vote is inconsistent with the constitution and invalid and E by a majority concludes that the report must be referred to the impeachment committee.

[00:01:26]Now if you're thinking how what does all of this mean? Well, legal analyst advocate Damna is with us. Advocate appreciate your time. Now let's start with the basics. What exactly did the constitutional court find and what did it not find?

[00:01:41]>> Yes, maybe let's put the question the other way around to say what did people want from the constitutional court and what did it give them?

[00:01:51]>> Perfect. uh the applicants went to the constitutional court to say look there was a process in the national assembly which prevented us from basically impeaching the president >> h and they the constitutional court comes back and says look the process indeed appears to have been flawed what we are ordering the national assembly to do is to run a proper process now you could ask the question who won and who didn't win.

[00:02:24]>> And in my view, it's either everybody did not win or everybody won. That is the National Assembly, the president, the ANC, the EFF, ATM and even the political parties which did not participate in the constitutional court case. So everybody either won or did not win. So, so is it correct to say the court has not found President Ramaposa guilty but has found that parliament acted unlawfully in stopping the process?

[00:02:53]>> Yes. Uh the court did not find the president guilty. And by the way, the National Assembly itself >> did not find the president guilty of an impeachable offense. What happened is that the process ended up when the independent panel submitted its report and the national assembly ruled that it is not proceeding with the process. Now the next stage logically would have been to refer the matter to an impeachment committee which is what is at the heart of the constitutional court finding that the matter should go to the impeachment committee. But you equally cannot necessarily fault the national assembly because the rules which they use as it were then were valid. The constitutional court has now effectively read into the rules to correct them to ensure that the process is aligned. So hence I say you can't say this one won and this one did not win.

[00:03:55]Now, what is a legal effect of declaring Parliament's earlier decision unconstitutional and invalid? Does it mean the process must restart from the point where it was unlawfully stopped?

[00:04:06]>> Yes, certainly. But I think people must be careful because I've heard a lot of uh political party leaders saying things that don't actually make sense. What should happen now and the conal court has reaffirmed the position that the national assembly is not obliged in law to impeach the president. It's in their discretion.

[00:04:29]>> All what the constitutional court has found is the faulty process by which the national assembly decided not to impeach the president. Now what we must be careful about is this may go to the impeachment committee the committee and it will go to the national assembly again that's the terminal point and that's where the final decision will be taken.

[00:04:50]>> So so what must the speaker and the national assembly do now to comply with the judgment.

[00:04:57]What they must now do is to refer the the the report of the independent panel to the impeachment committee which means they must constitute an impeachment committee and I think that's where the excitement comes uh from those who say well we want this president in the committee so we can ask him questions but you know there's a limit to what you're going to ask the president in any event. M okay explain that when you say there's a limit to what you can ask the president >> the complaint against the president is a specific issue regarding uh the foreign currency or the alleged transaction which occurred on his farm. Now we now know and I think this is very interesting. We now know that the public protector is investigated and has made a finding. The report of the public protector has not been reviewed and set aside. It's binding. It can't be ignored. The impeachment committee is going to have to consider that. The South African Reserve Bank has also investigated its part of the transaction and they have made a finding. That report and finding has not been set aside. It would have to be considered by the impeachment committee. IP has also made a finding with regard to the police officers from the presidential protection unit. That report is there.

[00:06:19]It has not been reviewed and set aside.

[00:06:21]It would have to be considered. Now the what the constitutional court is simply saying you can't decide whether to impeach or not to impeach unless you have considered all the available information and evidence. So the impeachment the independent panel report is part of the information which must be considered but the terms of reverence will have to focus on the subject on the particular issue which gave rise to the existence of the independent committee.

[00:06:51]It's not like you're going to go there and ask the president where did you bank why don't you bank and and you think that you are an answer to anything and I think we must be very careful because we have seen what the adult committee has done and I must say it's very very disappointing I think if people think the adult committee has done a very good job is a very disappointing process in that adult committee >> would have been a good question to ask you but question for another day so let's talk about the constitution of this impeachment ment committee because you you speak about the the important questions that have to be asked by the impeachment committee based on certain terms of of reference. How will it be constituted?

[00:07:33]>> The national assembly has got the rules and usually it's proportional to the weight that a political party has as you would have noticed. Uh I think the ANC has got the most seats. So it would have most members then followed by the party with the next h bigger part. I think the smaller smallest parties as you can see you sometimes don't see them in the committee but they had to clap together with other parties. So some of the people who are telling us what they want from the president might not even feature in the in the impeachment committee. It is a committee that is constituted proportional to the weight of the vote in the national assembly.

[00:08:14]And then when we look at the political parties and the people that they will recommend or they will put on this on this committee. I mean one of the things you suggested is is an understanding of certainly some aspects of the law or of the real issues. How important is this going to be you know I must say that that's why I was referring to the adult committee.

[00:08:37]You know um if you look at what has been happening the bickering between members the way in which they have treated uh people who are testifying there if you if you look at it really the substance got lost in that process because if you ask any member of that uh committee now what is it that you have established they may struggle uh to to explain you would have seen how they relate to the evidence leader at some point they were just you know bickering between members of the committee. I think we have a very toxic political environment h and we now know that our parliament generally is unable even to agree on a minimum program of what should be in the interest of the nation. So I'm very skeptical about whether even people with you know technical capacity are capable of focusing on the issue and give the nation the answers that it deserves not the answers that they want the nation to be given. We deserve answers as citizens not what politicians want us to hear.

[00:09:46]>> All right let's let's circle back to parliament now. Can can parliament delay this process or is there now a constitutional obligation to move with urgency?

[00:09:56]>> Well, I think uh the constitutional court indicates that a matter of this nature must be dealt with as soon as possible. I I wouldn't use the word agency because agency could mean like yesterday. But they say it's a matter that must be processed as soon as possible with the speed that it deserves. But they're also saying that it is subject even if you look what they the what we call the readins that is where they've sort of adapted the rules they say it's subject to the pro program of parliament for instance if parliament is in recess um unless the national assembly itself take a resolution that uh parliament is recalled uh to come which is allowed in terms of the constitution and the rules of parliament to recall parliament to transact on a particular issue. like in this case maybe to appoint an impeachment committee and then go back to recess and the impeachment committee can continue to work. So it is a matter that must be dealt with as soon as possible not necessarily urgently.

[00:11:00]>> My my final question how does the GNU change the politics of the process compared with 2022 where the ANC had a stronger majority.

[00:11:12]You know, I I think we might be conflating issues. And I think maybe that is exactly what I refer to as a toxic environment. I've heard that the DA says, "Look, we are an ethical party.

[00:11:25]We go we're not going to protect anybody." The ANC has said, "We welcome the judgment." I know the ATM has been saying, "We want this man as soon as possible." Now, the the I've seen the Patriotic Alliance say, "President, let's continue working." Now you can almost get a clear sense that we are not going to test the veracity of the issues that the president is alleged to have committed but we are going to deal with political grandstanding particularly in the face of the local government elections but I think the whole issue in my view also revolves around the president himself because I think this gives him the best opportunity to appear before parliament and explain himself even if it means he's explaining himself again and I think we know he explained himself to the impeachment committee but subsequent to the impeachment committee there's been other developments and I think he should stand there I think the idea that he must resign h I would with the greatest respect call him a coward I think he must go and confront uh parliament and account in so far as the GNU is concerned I'm not sure what the actual relationships are because on the one hand you seem to realize that part of the GNU becomes an opposition to the ANC. I mean for all intents and purposes I think even GNU partners see the ANC still as the ruling party and they act in opposition in certain instances they do support but you also have a fracture because you wonder whether even on principle the DA would agree with the EFF or MK party. So we might just find ourselves dealing with political posturing and self-interest.