Opposition parties criticized the African National Congress (ANC) for alleged delaying tactics during discussions in Parliament’s impeachment committee on Wednesday, July 29. The criticism stems from concerns that such delays could push proceedings close to the end of President Cyril Ramaphosa's potential second term. Should President Ramaphosa remain in the Union Buildings after December 2027, he would be in the final months of his second, and constitutionally final, term of office by late 2028. This potential timeline shows the urgency expressed by opposition parties regarding the committee's progress.
Parliamentary Impasse Over Proceedings
Decisions on key steps, such as appointing evidence leaders and finalising terms of reference for the impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa, were not reached. These key procedural decisions were left hanging by the end of the committee's session. The committee spent 90 minutes debating whether the authors of the Section 89 independent panel report should brief Members of Parliament (MPs). During this extensive discussion, African National Congress (ANC) MPs contended that the Section 89 panel report was not the "gospel truth," suggesting its findings should not be taken as definitive.
Parliamentary legal advice indicated that the Section 89 panel ceased to exist once it submitted its report to the National Assembly speaker at the end of November 2022. Precedent from the impeachment of former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane demonstrated that evidence leaders briefed MPs on the independent panel report, without requiring the panel chairperson to brief MPs directly. This established procedure suggested that calling the panel authors was not a necessary step. Despite this clear legal advice and precedent, ANC MP Mikateko Mahlaule argued that no final decision could be made, as the party sought its own legal advice regarding the existing parliamentary legal counsel. This request for additional legal consultation was viewed by some as a tactic to prolong the proceedings. Despite this, a vote ultimately overruled the ANC's stance on having the panel authors brief the committee, with the majority deciding against it. ANC MP Cameron Dugmore insisted his party was pursuing "a perfectly reasonable request" for fairness, rather than deliberately stalling the process.
Legal Challenges and Court Delays
A 24 July interdict prevents Parliament’s impeachment committee from conducting "public impeachment hearings" until the "determination of the review application" is complete. This interdict has introduced a significant pause in the parliamentary process. Next week, Members of Parliament (MPs) are scheduled to discuss parliamentary legal advice concerning whether President Cyril Ramaphosa can be compelled to testify and if an adverse inference could be drawn should he decline. The outcomes of these discussions will be key for the committee's future direction. The Section 89 panel report was initially referred to MPs following a May 2026 Constitutional Court judgment. That May 2026 ruling effectively revived impeachment proceedings that had been voted down by African National Congress (ANC) members in the House in December 2022, bringing the matter back to the forefront of parliamentary debate.
President Ramaphosa's review of the Section 89 independent panel report is scheduled for a three-day hearing in early September 2026 at the Western Cape high court. During earlier proceedings related to the interdict, Judge Diane Davis commented that "a delay of a few months" would hardly constitute a serious harm to the separation of powers, implying that some deferment was acceptable within the judicial process. In Judge Davis's worst-case scenario, the impeachment committee would continue with its hearing after February 2027, indicating a potentially lengthy judicial process. Despite these legal challenges, Judge Matthew Francis dismissed the interdict application. The President had previously indicated in court papers that he "may seek a further stay pending appeals," suggesting a willingness to exhaust all legal avenues. The African Transformation Movement (ATM), Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), MK party, and United Africans Transformation (UAT) are now seeking direct access to the Constitutional Court to appeal against the interdict, signalling their intent to push for the impeachment proceedings to continue without delay. The impeachment committee also held a vote on whether to appeal against the interdict, reflecting the ongoing legal back-and-forth.
Potential Two-Year Impeachment Timeline
A likely succession of appeals to the Constitutional Court concerning the presidential impeachment in the Phala Phala forex theft saga is projected to span two years, potentially longer. The Phala Phala Section 89 independent panel report review case is ultimately expected to reach the Constitutional Court, extending the legal battles to the highest judicial authority. Once President Cyril Ramaphosa concludes his term following the 2029 elections, impeachment proceedings would no longer be applicable, according to constitutional provisions. This means there is a finite window for these proceedings to conclude. These legal processes indicate a protracted timeline for the impeachment efforts against President Ramaphosa, making the current delays in Parliament even more significant. The ongoing judicial reviews and potential appeals contribute to the uncertainty surrounding the finalisation of the parliamentary impeachment committee's work, raising questions about whether a resolution will be reached before the President's term ends.
