ANC Defends Court Pause in Ramaphosa Parliamentary Process
The ANC has moved to defend the Western Cape High Court order pausing public hearings in the parliamentary process involving President Cyril Ramaphosa, insisting that the matter is about protecting due process, not shielding anyone from accountability.
In a strongly worded statement, the party said South Africans want those who undermine the rule of law to be brought to book, but argued that the country also needs a functioning state and a fair process that people can trust.
The ANC said the court had granted an interim order pausing the public hearings of the parliamentary committee. It stressed that this was “a pause, not a cancellation”.
According to the party, the pause allows the court to hear the review that the President is entitled to bring, which is set down for 2 to 4 September.
The ANC said the court had not decided who was right or wrong on the substance of the matter, but had instead protected the process to ensure it is done correctly.
The party also said the Constitutional Court judgment of 8 May still stands and that the parliamentary process remains alive. It said the process would continue once the courts had spoken.
The ANC accused some political parties of using the matter for headlines, saying the issue had been distorted to suggest that the Constitutional Court had ordered that Ramaphosa must be impeached.
The party rejected that interpretation, saying there was no such decision.
It also defended the Speaker of the National Assembly against a motion of no confidence, arguing that she had acted correctly by not taking sides in litigation involving parties over whom she may later have to preside.
“To punish a presiding officer for refusing to be partisan is to stand the principle on its head,” the ANC said.
The party said Parliament must continue with its wider work and not be consumed by one issue while South Africans face unemployment and a rising cost of living.
The ANC framed the dispute as a question of sequencing, asking which process should come first and whether one process should run over another.
The party said South Africans deserve clear information about court judgments so that they can make up their own minds, instead of being fed political distortion.
