Gana hits back at Ramaphosa’s bid to halt impeachment process, says high court lacks authority

Impeachment committee chairperson Makashule Gana has defended parliament’s ongoing impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa, arguing that attempts to halt the process are legally untenable and amount to a challenge to a binding Constitutional Court order.

In an answering affidavit filed in the Western Cape High Court, Gana rejects Ramaphosa’s urgent application seeking to suspend the work of parliament’s impeachment committee pending the outcome of his review challenge against the independent panel report that found prima facie grounds existed for parliament to consider whether the president committed serious violations of the constitution.

Gana argues that the president’s application is fundamentally flawed because it asks a lower court to interfere with a constitutional process that has already been endorsed and directed by the Constitutional Court.

“The high court simply lacks jurisdiction to stay the implementation of an order of the Constitutional Court,” Gana states in the affidavit.

His response marks the most significant legal pushback yet against Ramaphosa’s efforts to pause the impeachment process. The first to oppose them was the ATM’s Vuyo Zungula last week. Gana’s affidavit sets up what could become a major constitutional battle over the powers of parliament, the judiciary and the presidency.

At the heart of Gana’s opposition is the argument that the Constitutional Court has already settled the matter.

The apex court’s judgment ordered that the independent panel’s report be referred to the impeachment committee established under section 89 of the constitution and parliament’s impeachment rules.

According to Gana, that order was final and binding, leaving parliament with no discretion but to proceed.

He argues that the committee’s work stems directly from the Constitutional Court’s judgment and that any attempt to stop the committee would effectively amount to suspending the implementation of the Constitutional Court’s order.

“The Constitutional Court ordered that the report be referred to the committee. The committee is carrying out that order,” Gana argues.

The affidavit contends that if Ramaphosa wanted to challenge the legality of the panel report, he should have done so before the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment and directed parliament to proceed.

Instead, Gana argues, the president is now attempting to attack the report that formed part of the basis for the Constitutional Court’s decision.

“The issue of the legality of the independent panel report is no longer open to challenge through the court processes,” the affidavit states.

Gana also disputes Ramaphosa’s assertion that the impeachment process has not yet properly commenced.

The president’s application appears to draw a distinction between preliminary committee activities and the formal impeachment inquiry.

However, Gana rejects that interpretation, arguing that the committee’s work encompasses all activities undertaken in fulfilment of its constitutional mandate.

“The committee’s understanding of its work is that it includes everything it does as a committee, including preparatory work, holding meetings and gathering evidence,” he says.

He warns that the president’s application fails to clearly define what exactly should be suspended, creating uncertainty over whether committee members would be permitted to hold meetings, receive evidence, consult legal advisers or undertake preparatory work.

Such ambiguity, Gana argues, makes the relief sought impractical and unworkable.

The affidavit notes that the committee has already begun carrying out various administrative and preparatory functions in line with parliament’s impeachment rules and constitutional obligations.

A major theme running through Gana’s affidavit is the principle of separation of powers.

He argues that granting the interdict would represent an inappropriate intrusion by the judiciary into parliament’s constitutional responsibilities.

Parliament, he says, has been specifically mandated by the constitution to determine whether grounds exist to remove a president from office.

The committee, as an extension of parliament, is carrying out that constitutional function.

Stopping its work would therefore interfere with parliament’s ability to fulfil obligations assigned to it by the constitution and the Constitutional Court.

Gana further argues that courts have traditionally exercised caution when asked to interfere with ongoing parliamentary processes, particularly where parliament is performing functions expressly assigned to it under the constitution.

“The Constitutional Court has repeatedly emphasised the importance of respecting the constitutional roles assigned to different branches of government,” he argues.

Gana also raises concerns about the practical consequences of the president’s application.

He argues that if the impeachment committee’s work is halted pending the final determination of the review proceedings, the process could be delayed for years.

Given the likelihood of appeals and further litigation, parliament’s constitutional responsibility to investigate the allegations against the president could effectively be suspended indefinitely, he contends.

The affidavit suggests that such an outcome would frustrate the purpose of the section 89 impeachment process and undermine accountability mechanisms established by the constitution.

Gana argues that parliament cannot simply put its constitutional obligations on hold while parallel litigation unfolds.

Notably, Gana makes clear that the committee is not engaging with the substantive merits of Ramaphosa’s review challenge against the independent panel report.

Instead, his opposition focuses squarely on the legal obstacles facing the president’s attempt to obtain interim relief.

The affidavit argues that regardless of the merits of the review application, the president cannot satisfy the legal requirements necessary to justify halting the committee’s work.

According to Gana, the review and interdict applications face “insurmountable legal hurdles”, including the Constitutional Court’s existing order and the high court’s lack of authority to suspend its implementation.

TimesLIVE

---