Mpofu Tells Court It Has No Power to Stop Ramaphosa Impeachment Process
The legal battle over President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala impeachment process has turned into a fierce constitutional showdown, with Advocate Dali Mpofu arguing that the Western Cape High Court has no jurisdiction to stop a process already dealt with by the Constitutional Court.
Mpofu, arguing against Ramaphosa’s bid for interim relief, told the court that once an independent panel found that there was sufficient evidence for a prima facie case, the impeachment process had to continue unless that finding was formally set aside.
At the centre of his argument was the principle that court orders and official decisions remain valid until overturned by a competent court. Mpofu argued that a lower court could not interfere with what he described as the effect of a Constitutional Court decision.
He warned that granting Ramaphosa’s application would amount to the High Court stepping into the lane of the Constitutional Court and Parliament.
According to Mpofu, the President’s remedy was not to ask the High Court to halt the process, but to approach the Constitutional Court for a variation or rescission if he believed the earlier order should be changed.
He also attacked the urgency of Ramaphosa’s application, arguing that the alleged reputational harm did not begin recently, but when the panel report was released in 2022. Mpofu said the President could not now claim sudden urgency after abandoning earlier legal steps that could have resolved the dispute sooner.
The court also heard arguments that the matter raised serious separation of powers concerns. Mpofu submitted that Parliament has its own constitutional role in impeachment proceedings and that the judiciary should be slow to interfere with that process before a final review is heard.
Another point raised was non-joinder. Mpofu argued that Ramaphosa brought the matter in his personal capacity, but also relied on harm allegedly affecting the Office of the President. He submitted that the President as an office and Ramaphosa as an individual were legally distinct.
Mpofu further argued that the application failed to meet the requirements for interim relief, including proving exceptional circumstances, irreparable harm and the absence of alternative remedies.
The matter is expected to continue with the right of reply.
