The African Transformation Movement (ATM) and Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) have filed urgent appeals to the Constitutional Court seeking to overturn a Western Cape High Court interim interdict that halted public impeachment hearings against President Cyril Ramaphosa, with both parties arguing the order is vague and undermines parliamentary oversight.

ATM And EFF Challenge High Court Order

The ATM lodged its direct appeal on 25 July 2026, days after the High Court order paused hearings related to the Section 89 independent panel report on the Phala Phala matter, citing a lack of clarity in what constitutes a “public impeachment hearing.” The EFF followed on 27 July, applying for leave to appeal that the interdict unlawfully interrupts Parliament’s constitutional functions. According to ATM leader Vuyo Zungula, speaking to media, “The question is, what is a public impeachment hearing? Is it the same as an impeachment committee proceeding? It brings about some level of vagueness which could open the order to be interpreted in different ways, which then affects how the order could actually be complied to by political parties and by parliament itself.”

The Western Cape High Court’s interim relief prevents the Speaker of Parliament and impeachment committee chairperson from convening hearings until court review of the Section 89 process is complete. The Phala Phala panel found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have breached his oath of office, which triggered Parliament’s Section 89 proceedings. Both ATM and EFF argue that the High Court order sets a damaging precedent and interferes with required parliamentary scrutiny.

Implications For Parliamentary Oversight

ATM and EFF maintain that the court’s decision could severely affect Parliament’s ability to hold presidents accountable. Zungula stated, “It’s unprecedented, you know, it places Parliament and our democratic institutions at a very, very difficult position because what it effectively means is each and every president that is held accountable via the Section 89 process can easily go to court and want to stop Parliament from doing what Parliament constitutionally is obligated to do.” He further argued, “The order is appealable because it has a final effect on parliamentary processes.”

Parliament’s role in executive accountability has come under renewed scrutiny amid the Phala Phala scandal. According to court filings and party statements, the ATM and EFF see the suspension of hearings as undermining both public confidence and the constitutional separation of powers. The Constitutional Court is expected to determine whether to grant direct access for these appeals in the coming weeks.

A decision by the Constitutional Court will direct the immediate future of the impeachment proceedings and clarify the boundaries of judicial intervention over parliamentary responsibilities.