The African Transformation Movement (ATM) has filed an urgent direct appeal with the Constitutional Court after the Western Cape High Court granted President Cyril Ramaphosa an interim order halting Parliament’s impeachment inquiry into his conduct in the Phala Phala matter. The ATM’s application, lodged on 26 July 2026, argues that the High Court’s ruling creates uncertainty about whether a lower court can suspend the implementation of a Constitutional Court order, specifically the court’s May 2026 judgment that compelled Parliament to proceed with an impeachment inquiry based on the Section 89 panel’s report.

ATM Seeks Constitutional Clarity Over Court Powers

According to ATM leader Vuyo Zungula, the party has approached the Constitutional Court seeking urgent clarification on the hierarchy of judicial authority. Speaking on the court application, Zungula stated, “It is therefore necessary for the Constitutional Court to clarify whether the implementation of one of its own orders may be suspended by a lower court.” The ATM maintains that the Phala Phala matter presents significant unresolved questions that demand parliamentary oversight rather than judicial delays.

The ATM’s legal challenge follows a sequence of events beginning with the Constitutional Court’s May 2026 ruling, which required Parliament to establish an impeachment committee following the Section 89 report into the Phala Phala farm scandal. However, President Ramaphosa successfully obtained an interim interdict from the Western Cape High Court in June 2026, temporarily suspending Parliament’s inquiry pending the outcome of his challenge to the report.

EFF And Opposition Parties Back Parliamentary Process

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and ATM have publicly opposed Ramaphosa’s legal efforts to pause the impeachment process. EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said, “We will continue to defend the Constitutional Court’s judgment, which unequivocally directed Parliament to establish an Impeachment Committee to inquire into the findings of the Section 89 Independent Panel report.” Both parties argue that allowing the courts to intervene in this manner sets a precedent that could erode Parliament’s constitutional powers of oversight and accountability.

The ATM contends that the Western Cape High Court’s decision has stalled a process of clear national importance, impacting the ability of Parliament to scrutinise the executive and undermining the intent of the Constitutional Court’s direction. The matter is now before South Africa’s highest court, with political and legal observers awaiting the Constitutional Court’s response to the ATM’s appeal and the broader implications for separation of powers in South Africa.

The Constitutional Court is expected to rule on the admissibility of the ATM’s urgent appeal in the coming weeks.