President Cyril Ramaphosa has filed papers in the Western Cape High Court to review the report of the Independent Panel.
Image: Zwelethemba Kostile / Parliament of RSA
ATM MP Vuyo Zungula wants the Judge President of the Western Cape High Court Division to allocate a date in August to hear President Cyril Ramaphosa’s review application on an expedited basis.
This emerged in a letter sent to Ramaphosa’s lawyers, where Zungula accused Ramaphosa of using the “Stalingrad approach” to delay the impeachment process.
Ramaphosa cited Zungula as a fifth respondent along with retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, Thokozile Masipa, Mahlape Sello, and National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza in the papers filed in the Cape Town High Court on Monday.
In his motion of notice, he wants the Independent Panel and its recommendations reviewed, declared unlawful, and set aside.
Ramaphosa is not seeking relief from Zungula, but cited him as the person who filed the motion of no confidence that led to the appointment of the Independent Panel.
The other respondents have been given 15 days “to show cause why the report and the steps taken pursuant to the report should not be reviewed and set aside”.
However, in the letter, Zungula’s attorneys said the parliamentarian’s firm view was that the interest of justice demands the application be heard on an expedited basis.
Zungula will propose that “the parties approach the Judge President of the Eastern Cape High Court to allocate a date for the hearing of the matter on August 10-12, 2026”.
He proposed the timetable leading to that includes:
The timetable also proposes that the heads of arguments be delivered by July 27 and August 3 by Ramaphosa and the respondents, respectively.
“We believe that this timetable is practicable and serves the interest of justice on every level,” reads the letter from Ashersons’ Attorneys.
The attorneys questioned why Ramaphosa requested the Independent Panel to file the Rule 53 record without shortening time periods, as he had previously filed a similar application.
Zungula’s legal team said Ramaphosa’s application is “ill-founded and constitutes a Stalingrad approach”.
“Your client clearly wishes to delay being subjected to a fair and constitutional process. This is by its nature untenable and undesirable.”
They said the postponement of the Impeachment Committee’s proceedings pending the review application would be in contempt of the Constitutional Court order.
“It is Mr Zungula’s view that it is unprecedented and entirely inappropriate for one organ of the state, in particular the president, to attempt to interdict the proceedings of another, being the National Assembly.
“It is most unfortunate that your client would even consider threatening the National Assembly with an interdict.”
Ramaphosa indicated in his affidavit that he would be forced to launch an urgent application to interdict Parliament from proceeding with the impeachment process while his application was pending.
Zungula said courts have ruled that they should not interfere in the workings of parliamentary committees until the House adopts or rejects committee findings.
“It is Mr Zungula’s view that the impeachment proceedings should continue notwithstanding the existence of your client’s application. This is so, apart from our client’s view that the review application has limited, if any merit.”
Meanwhile, the DA said the parliamentary impeachment process must not stall while President Ramaphosa's review application unfolds before the courts.
“Parliament must be allowed to conduct its oversight and accountability role unobstructed,” said parliamentary leader George Michalakis.
Michalakis said Parliament must urgently set the rules and terms of reference for the Impeachment Committee.
He noted that Ramaphosa has, in his court papers, indicated that he would interdict if the impeachment process went ahead.
“The president knows full well that there is a long way ahead for the parliamentary processes to be put in place before the hearing itself will commence. Such a step would, therefore, come down to the Head of State actively preventing Parliament from complying with a Constitutional Court order and be nothing but delay tactics.”
The stance taken by the DA and ATM comes against the backdrop of ActionSA writing to Didiza, cautioning against any delays to the commencement of the work of the Impeachment Committee.
Chief whip Lerato Ngobeni said, notwithstanding Ramaphosa’s application, the work of the committee must proceed unimpeded.
Build One South Africa said while Ramaphosa is fully within his constitutional rights to pursue any legal remedies available to him, taxpayers should not be forced to fund his personal legal defence in a matter arising from his private farm and private affairs.
mayibongwe.maqhina@inl.co.za