By 
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has sharply criticized a majority decision by the Western Cape High Court that granted President Cyril Ramaphosa an urgent interdict to halt Parliament’s impeachment committee.
The interdict temporarily stops the committee from investigating whether foreign currency found at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm constitutes an impeachable offense.
In an official reaction to the split ruling, the opposition party expressed deep concern over the legal reasoning adopted by the majority bench, warning that the judgment sets a dangerous precedent for parliamentary accountability and the rule of law.
A Divided Bench
The full bench of the Western Cape High Court delivered three separate judgments in the high-stakes matter. The majority opinion, written by Judges Dennis Davis and André le Grange, granted President Ramaphosa the interim relief he sought pending a full review of the Independent Panel’s findings. Conversely, Judge Matthew Francis issued a dissenting minority judgment concluding that the President lacked sufficient grounds for an interdict.
While all three judges accepted that the Section 89 Independent Panel report—which found Ramaphosa had a prima facie case to answer—is subject to legal review, the EFF firmly rejected this premise. The party pointed to Order 7 of a Constitutional Court judgment handed down in May, arguing it explicitly and peremptorily mandated the referral of the panel’s report to the parliamentary impeachment committee.
According to the EFF, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to interdict a process directly set in motion by the apex court. The party maintained that the referral order and the operational mandate of the parliamentary committee are inextricably linked, meaning the High Court’s intervention improperly disrupted a process rooted in Constitutional Court authority.
Failure to Meet Interdict Requirements
Focusing on the minority opinion, the EFF highlighted Judge Francis’s analysis regarding the legal standard for interim interdicts established in South African jurisprudence. To secure an interdict, an applicant must establish a clear or prima facie right, demonstrate imminent infringement, and prove that irreparable harm would occur without judicial intervention.
The EFF argued that President Ramaphosa failed to satisfy these foundational criteria. Citing Judge Francis’s findings, the party noted that any potential harm to the President remains far from irreparable because the parliamentary committee could ultimately exonerate him during its proceedings.
Furthermore, with the President’s underlying review application scheduled for a hearing in September, the EFF contended that the court was required to weigh his prospects of success. Echoing Judge Francis, the red berets argued that Ramaphosa’s review application appears thin on paper, rendering the majority’s decision to halt parliamentary oversight unconvincing.
Broader Political Implications
The EFF characterized the judgment as containing elementary errors of interpretation, framing it as proof that the judiciary should not be immune to legitimate public scrutiny. The party warned that when courts issue flawed rulings that delay executive accountability, society as a whole has cause for concern.
As Parliament’s proceedings remain stalled ahead of the crucial September review hearing, the ruling re-ignites the fierce debate over judicial oversight, executive accountability, and the boundaries between the courts and the legislature.
