The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) notes the judgement of the Western Cape High Court on the interdict application brought by President Ramaphosa to stop the Impeachment Committee of Parliament from conducting its work to establish whether Ramaphosa’s conduct in relation to illicit foreign currency found at his Phala Phala farm amounts to an impeachable offence.

The full bench of the High Court delivered three judgements, with the majority, written by Judge Davis and Judge Le Grange granting the interdict sought by Ramaphosa, while the minority judgement by Judge Francis finds that Ramaphosa has no grounds to stand on in his application. We are, however, gravely concerned by the reasoning of the majority of the Court, and are of the view that the judgement provides for a dangerous precedent in several aspects.

The first one is concerning the jurisdiction of the High Court to interdict a process that has been initiated by the decision of the Constitutional Court. In this regard, all three judgements ruled that the report of the Independent Panel which found that Ramaphosa had a case to answer to the Impeachment Committee of Parliament is reviewable. We respectfully disagree with this reasoning by the Honorable judges in this regard. Order 7 of the Constitutional Court on the judgement delivered in May is explicit and peremptory, the Independent Panel report must be referred to the Impeachment Committee. It is that order that led to the establishment of the Impeachment Committee and the referral to the Impeachment Committee is not divorced from the work that the Impeachment Committee must do. As such, the referral to the Impeachment Committee and the work that the Impeachment Committee must do cannot be divorced.

Secondly, the judgement by Francis elaborately articulates the reasons why Ramaphosa has failed to meet the requirements for an interim interdict as concretised in our law by various judgements for over a century. The president ought to have, and must have pleaded a prima facie right which would be violated by the continuation of the Impeachment Committee, proven that the violation of his rights is imminent, and that he would suffer irreparable harm were the Impeachment Committee to proceed with its work.

The judgement written by Francis clearly demonstrates that even as the president scantly made mention of his prima facie right, there is no prospect whatsoever that the violation of that right was imminent and that he would suffer irreparable harm. In fact, the judge found, as we argued in court, that the Impeachment Committee may in fact even exonerate Ramaphosa. The harm that the president could potentially face if the Impeachment Committee proceeds with its work is therefore not irreparable.

Ramaphosa’s review application is set down for a hearing in September, and courts hearing an interdict application must, of essence, consider the prospects of success of the review application. As Judge Francis clearly states, on the papers before the court at the moment, Ramaphosa’s chances of success in the review application are very shallow. The interdict judgement therefore does not convincingly set out the clear rights that Ramaphosa has, which rights would suffer imminent and irreparable harm were the Impeachment Committee proceed with its work. Furthermore, it fails to sufficiently deal with the question of the jurisdiction of the High Court to interdict work directly flowing from an order of the constitutional court; it fails to sufficiently highlight the prospects of success of the review application; and is overall a judgement littered with elementary interpretation mistakes.

This judgement reinforces our view that the judiciary is not beyond fair criticism, and that when the judiciary gets decisions such as this wrong, then society must be seriously concerned.