Impeachment: Gana warns Ramaphosa can’t escape constitutional accountability [VIDEO]

· Citizen

Chairperson of Parliament’s Impeachment Committee Makashule Gana has warned that shielding President Cyril Ramaphosa would violate constitutional accountability and breach the separation of powers.”

Gana filed his opposing affidavit in the Western Cape High Court on Monday, in support of the committee’s decision last week to challenge Ramaphosa’s attempt to halt the work of the committee, pending a review of the parliamentary report.

Visit asg-reflektory.pl for more information.

Opposing affidavit

Gana said the committee would continue with its work despite the legal challenge and will not b e derailed.

“The work of the committee continues, and we will have a meeting on Wednesday to consider the terms of reference and also the process of appointing evidence leaders.

Ramaphosa challenge

The committee was established after the Constitutional Court’s 8 May judgment set aside the National Assembly’s 2022 decision not to proceed with the impeachment process and referred the Independent Panel’s report to an Impeachment Committee for consideration.

Ramaphosa wants the report’s recommendations declared unlawful and set aside, challenging the panel’s findings that there was prima facie evidence of a serious violation of the constitution and law, as well as serious misconduct.

He approached the Western Cape High Court, seeking an urgent interdict while he challenges the Section 89 Independent Panel’s report, seeking to prevent the start of an impeachment inquiry until his separate review application against the report has been finalised.

The president decided to revive a judicial review of the Section 89 Independent Panel Report after the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) sent the report on the Phala Phala scandal back to parliament earlier this month, paving the way for an impeachment process against Ramaphosa to proceed.

No delays

In court papers opposing Ramaphosa’s urgent application in the Section 89 enquiry, committee Gana declared the process must advance without delay, arguing that the president is unclear about what he actually wants to interdict the committee from doing.

Gana said that granting the interdict would effectively suspend the committee’s work for years while legal proceedings and possible appeals run their course.

“What it means is that the Committee’s work will remain suspended for a few years taking into account that legal processes in courts take time.”

Reputational damage

The chairperson warned that an interdict would violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers by preventing Parliament from carrying out a function specifically mandated by the country’s highest court.

Addressing Ramaphosa’s claims of reputational harm, Gana vowed the panel would act “independently, fairly and transparently,” stressing that the president “will have every opportunity to challenge evidence and present his version of events.”

Removing Ramaphosa

He underscored the committee’s limited mandate

“The president will not be removed by the Committee. If at the end of the enquiry none of the charges are supported by credible and admissible evidence, the Committee is in law enjoined to return a verdict of not guilty.’

Gana dismissed Ramaphosa’s interdict bid as baseless “It is plain from the foregoing that the interdict sought cannot succeed.”

Defending Didiza

Meanwhile, Ramaphosa defended Speaker of Parliament Thoko Didiza’s stance, insisting she is acting independently and in strict accordance with the constitution by choosing not to oppose his urgent application to interdict the impeachment committee.

Didiza said on Friday that she won’t oppose Ramaphosa’s attempt to interdict the impeachment committee from proceedings, with opposition parties slamming her decision.

Her decision follows the impeachment committee’s decision to oppose Ramaphosa’s application.

‘No influence’

The 31-member committee resolved to take action on Thursday, after MPs were advised by an independent legal expert.

“The speaker of Parliament has to do the work that she has to do. She’s independent, and we don’t bring any influence to bear on her, and that is where the separation of powers comes into play.

“The State, as you well know, is composed of the executive, which is led by the president, by Parliament, the National Assembly, which is led by the speaker and the Judiciary, which is led by the Chief Justice.

“So, those three must act independently. So, we subscribe to that, and we know that when the speaker takes a decision, she is taking a decision in accordance with the principle of a separation of powers,” Ramaphosa said.

Not opposing Ramaphosa

Didiza opted not to oppose Ramaphosa’s bid to halt the impeachment process and instead filed a notice to abide by the court’s ruling.

The speaker said her decision is neither inconsistent nor in conflict with the impeachment committee, which is opposing Ramaphosa’s interdict attempt. 


Diza will also submit an explanatory affidavit stating that this route will enable her office to assist the Western Cape High Court.

The affidavit will explain the considerations Parliament took into account when implementing the Constitutional Court judgment. 


Didiza has until the end of Monday to file her explanatory affidavit in support of her decision to abide.

The matter is set to be heard in the Western Cape High Court on 15 and 16 July.

Read full story at source