{"id":37105,"date":"2026-08-30T10:29:32","date_gmt":"2026-08-30T10:29:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wedodis.co.za\/news\/?p=37105"},"modified":"2026-08-30T10:29:32","modified_gmt":"2026-08-30T10:29:32","slug":"mk-partys-appeal-denied-halting-ramaphosas-phala-phala-impeachment-proceedings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wedodis.co.za\/news\/mk-partys-appeal-denied-halting-ramaphosas-phala-phala-impeachment-proceedings\/","title":{"rendered":"MK Party’s Appeal Denied, Halting Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala Impeachment Proceedings"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA \u2014 The uMkhonto weSizwe Party has encountered a significant legal hurdle regarding the impeachment process of President Cyril Ramaphosa related to the Phala Phala scandal. The Western Cape High Court denied its request to appeal an interim order that prohibits Parliament\u2019s impeachment committee from conducting public hearings.<\/p>\n

On Friday, August 28, 2026, the court dismissed the application from both the MK Party and the United Africans Transformation, stating that they failed to present compelling reasons for the case to advance to the Supreme Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n

As a result, the temporary ban on public hearings remains in effect while Ramaphosa continues his main legal challenge against the findings of the Section 89 independent panel that investigated the Phala Phala issue.<\/p>\n

Public hearings still on hold<\/h2>\n

On July 24, the Western Cape High Court granted Ramaphosa an interim interdict, halting the impeachment committee from holding public hearings as permitted by Rule 129M of the National Assembly regulations.<\/p>\n

This order does not completely dissolve the committee\u2019s work.<\/p>\n

The committee is still allowed to engage in preparatory activities as the court evaluates the president\u2019s challenge to the panel’s report.<\/p>\n

According to the latest ruling, the committee is not yet at a stage where public hearings are imminent.<\/p>\n

The court indicated that the committee’s terms of reference are still under review, an objection was raised by Ramaphosa concerning the proposed chief evidence leader, and the assistant evidence leaders have yet to be appointed.<\/p>\n

MK Party sought a Supreme Court review<\/h2>\n

The MK Party claimed that the court overstepped its bounds by interfering with the necessary parliamentary measures designed to hold the president accountable.<\/p>\n

However, the bench did not accept this argument as a valid reason for granting an appeal.<\/p>\n

Judges Andr\u00e9 le Grange, Matthew Francis, and Diane Davis determined that the primary issue still requiring resolution is whether the Section 89 panel report should be reviewed and possibly annulled.<\/p>\n

An appeal against the temporary ban on public hearings would not address this principal matter.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the court noted that the main review could be resolved before any appeal of the interim order could progress through the appellate system.<\/p>\n

Ramaphosa\u2019s primary Phala Phala case to be reviewed next week<\/h2>\n

Attention now shifts to Ramaphosa\u2019s substantive review application set to be heard by the Western Cape High Court from September 2 to 4, 2026.<\/p>\n

Ramaphosa seeks to have the court overturn the findings made by the Section 89 independent panel.<\/p>\n

This panel concluded that the president might have a case to answer concerning the theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo, which occurred in February 2020.<\/p>\n

Approximately $580,000 was reportedly stolen from the property.<\/p>\n

This controversy has harbored significant political implications for Ramaphosa and remains a sensitive issue throughout his presidency.<\/p>\n

Temporary order may soon be lifted<\/h2>\n

The High Court reaffirmed that the existing restriction is temporary.<\/p>\n

Once a judgment is rendered in Ramaphosa\u2019s main review application, the interim order against public hearings will dissolve.<\/p>\n

The timing of this was crucial in the court\u2019s decision to deny the latest appeal.<\/p>\n

Judge Matthew Francis indicated that pursuing an appeal concurrently with the main review could incur additional costs and prolong litigation without resolving the fundamental issue at hand.<\/p>\n

The court acknowledged that the Constitutional Court had already denied a direct appeal related to the interim order.<\/p>\n

On August 12, the Constitutional Court rejected an application from the African Transformation Movement and Economic Freedom Fighters concerning this matter.<\/p>\n

Francis mentioned that this decision played a role in shaping the outcome of the MK Party\u2019s current request.<\/p>\n

The Phala Phala conflict continues<\/h2>\n

While the latest ruling has not concluded the impeachment controversy, focus will now shift to the upcoming hearing. Ramaphosa will aim to convince the court that the parliamentary panel report underlying the impeachment process is legally flawed.<\/p>\n

Success in this endeavor could significantly alter the foundation of the ongoing impeachment investigation.<\/p>\n

Conversely, failure could allow Parliament to advance with the impeachment once the temporary court restriction is lifted, although further appeals remain a possibility.<\/p>\n

Given these developments, the stakes are particularly high for the proceedings scheduled for September.<\/p>\n

For the MK Party, Friday’s ruling marks another setback in their efforts to initiate impeachment hearings prior to the resolution of Ramaphosa\u2019s primary court challenge.<\/p>\n

Stay tuned for further updates on this evolving political and legal issue.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n