Ramaphosa challenges evidence threshold in impeachment report

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal team told the Western Cape High Court on Wednesday that the Section 89 panel applied the wrong evidentiary threshold when it found there was prima facie evidence that he may have committed serious constitutional violations over the Phala Phala matter.

Advocate Wim Trengove SC argued that the panel had wrongly treated the requirement for “sufficient evidence” as meaning no more than a prima facie case, when the Constitution required a higher threshold before Parliament embarked on an impeachment inquiry.

ALSO READ | Ramaphosa seeks temporary pause, not end to impeachment inquiry — court hears

The argument is central to Ramaphosa’s bid to halt the work of Parliament’s impeachment committee until the courts rule on his review of the panel report.

Addressing Judge André Le Grange, Trengove said the president was seeking a limited interim interdict pending the outcome of the review application, which is expected to be heard in early September.

“All the President asks of you today is to give him an interim interdict until this court gives judgment,” Trengove said.

The relief sought would be temporary and would automatically lapse once judgment in the review application was delivered.

The Section 89 panel investigated claims by former Correctional Services national commissioner Arthur Fraser that a substantial amount of U.S. currency was stolen from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm.

ALSO READ | Ramaphosa extends Madlanga Commission’s lifespan again

It found there was “prima facie evidence” that the president may have committed serious violations of the Constitution.

Parliament initially rejected the report, but the Constitutional Court ruled in May that the National Assembly’s 2022 decision to block an impeachment inquiry into Ramaphosa over the Section 89 panel report was unconstitutional and invalid.

The ruling led to the establishment of Parliament’s impeachment committee, which is opposing Ramaphosa’s application for an interdict.

The MK Party, EFF and ATM are among the other parties that have also opposed the application.

Trengove said impeachment proceedings should never be initiated lightly because of their far-reaching consequences.

While Ramaphosa was willing to be held accountable, Trengove said subjecting him to impeachment proceedings would be a “humiliation”.

However, Advocate Anton Katz SC, representing the ATM, said the committee had rules to protect those appearing before it, including Ramaphosa.

ALSO READ | Ramaphosa announces cabinet changes across six key portfolios

Katz said Ramaphosa was creating the impression that the committee was not governed by rules.

He is asking the court to interfere in a process that is not unlawful.

“This is a disturbance of a process that is unfolding,” he said.