CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — The Western Cape High Court has begun hearing President Cyril Ramaphosa’s application to review and set aside the Section 89 independent panel report, which currently serves as the foundational document for the impeachment process underway in Parliament. This legal challenge follows the Constitutional Court’s recent decision to clear the way for the matter to be referred to the impeachment committee.
The core of the legal dispute centers on the evidentiary standard applied by the independent panel. President Ramaphosa’s legal counsel argued before the bench that the panel conflated prima facie evidence with sufficient evidence, thereby misunderstanding its constitutional and regulatory mandate.
According to the president’s legal team, while National Assembly Rule 129A requires the Speaker to identify a prima facie case when a member files a notice of motion, Rule 129G explicitly mandates that the independent panel must satisfy itself that there is sufficient evidence to trigger the Section 89 impeachment process. The counsel emphasized that the panel allegedly used the incorrect, lower threshold to find that the president prima facie violated the Constitution or the law, or seriously misconducted himself. Furthermore, the legal team argued that the panel failed to inquire whether the president acted in bad faith, a critical component of assessing sufficient evidence.
During court interactions, the bench questioned the practical definition of “sufficient” evidence in this context. The president’s legal counsel clarified that it requires a qualitative assessment. The threshold asks whether, having regard to the incriminating evidence and the president’s response, there is “enough meat” to the case to warrant a public inquiry. This process demands a careful weighing up and balancing of the evidence, rather than a mechanical count of affidavits or a reliance on hearsay versus firsthand accounts.
A focal point of the original 2022 notice of motion and the panel’s findings was the allegation that the president may have *prima facie* violated Section 96 of the Constitution, which prohibits members of the executive from undertaking other paid work.
Addressing this specific charge, the president’s legal team submitted that Ramaphosa had appropriately placed any business interests that could conceivably yield a conflict of interest into a blind trust prior to taking office. The current contention involves a family farm owned by a family trust and operated as a closed corporation. The counsel argued that while the president is the sole member of the business, it is actively run by a manager and staff. The Constitution prohibits executive members from doing “other paid work,” the team asserted, but it does not prohibit them from holding business interests or being the owner of a farming business.
The hearings are expected to continue through Friday. The court is scheduled to hear submissions from the ATM’s legal counsel, Advocate Anton Katz, starting at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. Advocate Anton Katz is expected to build upon and accentuate arguments previously ventilated by the ATM regarding the validity and progression of the impeachment proceedings.