Ramaphosa cites schoolboy suspension case in bid to overturn Phala Phala report
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is using a legal precedent involving a schoolboy's suspension to argue that his challenge against the Phala Phala impeachment report is not premature. His legal team contends that the report's findings cause immediate reputational and political harm, justifying judicial intervention before the parliamentary process concludes.
Why it matters
This case tests the limits of judicial oversight regarding ongoing parliamentary impeachment proceedings and the legal protections afforded to a sitting head of state.
President Cyril Ramaphosa's bid to have the report that triggered his Phala Phala impeachment inquiry set aside rests, in part, on a court case about a schoolboy suspended from class.
His advocate, Wim Trengove SC, relied on the judgment in the Western Cape High Court on Wednesday as he argued that, contrary to the respondents’ contention, Ramaphosa’s application was not premature.
This despite Parliament’s impeachment inquiry not having been concluded.
Ramaphosa asked the court to set aside the Section 89 independent panel's report, which found in November 2022 that there was enough evidence for him to face four impeachment charges.
The charges stem from the theft of about US$580,000 in cash that had been hidden in furniture at his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.
The panel was chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo.
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