Court urged to reject Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala interdict
%2Ffile%2Fattachments%2Forphans%2FED_615768_593331.jpg&w=3840&q=75)
The Western Cape High Court is hearing arguments regarding President Cyril Ramaphosa's attempt to interdict impeachment proceedings related to the Phala Phala scandal. Opposition parties argue that granting the interdict would improperly interfere with Parliament's constitutional authority.
Why it matters
This case tests the separation of powers in South Africa and the legal accountability of the President regarding the controversial theft of funds from his private farm.
The Western Cape High Court heard that granting the President an urgent interdict to halt impeachment proceedings against him would encroach on Parliament’s domain.
15 Jul 2026 Judges Matthew Francis, Andre Le Grange and Diane Davis at the urgent interdict hearing on Phala Phala at the Western Cape Division of the High Court on 15 July 2026 in Cape Town, South Africa. (Photo: Gallo Images / ER Lombard) Dive Deeper Speed Read Summary Listen Dive Deeper Opposition parties have argued that the Western Cape High Court would be “crossing” into Parliament’s lane should it grant President Cyril Ramaphosa an urgent interdict to prevent the impeachment committee from starting proceedings against him, pending his review of the Section 89 panel report.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in