The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) are petitioning South Africa’s Constitutional Court to overturn a High Court interdict that halted impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa [1].
The legal move represents a critical attempt to restart the Section 89 parliamentary process, which seeks to hold the president accountable for the Phala Phala corruption scandal [2]. If successful, the challenge could force Parliament to resume a formal inquiry into the president's conduct.
The EFF and the MK Party are challenging the interim interdict on the grounds that it unlawfully stalls the impeachment process [1]. The party argues that the legal freeze prevents the National Assembly from exercising its constitutional duty to investigate allegations of presidential misconduct [2].
Julius Malema, the leader of the EFF, said the Constitutional Court has rightly ruled that the National Assembly’s decision regarding Phala Phala was unlawful and unconstitutional [2]. The party maintains that the integrity of the democratic process depends on the ability to remove a leader through established legal channels.
Mazwi Blose, an EFF member of parliament, said the party will take the matter to the Constitutional Court to protect the integrity of the impeachment process [1]. The legal battle centers on whether the High Court had the authority to pause a legislative process initiated by Parliament.
President Ramaphosa has sought to block the proceedings, describing the effort as a political maneuver rather than a legal necessity. Ramaphosa said he will seek an interdict to protect the nation from a politically motivated impeachment [2].
The case now moves to the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg, which serves as the final arbiter on whether the parliamentary inquiry can proceed or if the High Court's stay remains in effect [2].
“We will take this matter to the Constitutional Court to protect the integrity of the impeachment process.”
This legal escalation highlights the ongoing tension between South Africa's judicial oversight and parliamentary sovereignty. By moving the case to the Constitutional Court, the EFF is attempting to establish a legal precedent that prevents the judiciary from indefinitely stalling the removal of a head of state, while the presidency argues that such processes are being weaponized for political gain.
