ACDP Parliamentary Whip and member of the Impeachment Committee, Steve Swart MP, has expressed deep disappointment at National Assembly Speaker, Thoko Didiza’s, decision to not oppose President Ramaphosa’s urgent application to interdict the Impeachment Committee from conducting its enquiry pending the review application of the Independent Expert Panel report.
“The ACDP wrote a letter to the Speaker on Monday 15 June 2026, after President Ramaphosa filed an urgent interdict application in the Western Cape High Court, requesting both the Speaker and the Chairman of the Impeachment Committee (IC), Mr Makashule Gana, to oppose the interdict application mainly to protect the constitutional independence of Parliament and its oversight role over the President. This was emphasised by the Constitutional Court’s ruling in Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others [2026] ZACC 17 (Case CCT 35/24) where the court stated at paragraph 94: “… The National Assembly’s oversight role over the President lies at the heart of our constitutional scheme. Accountability is one of the foundational values of our Constitution, and the National Assembly bears the responsibility to ensure that the President is held accountable…”
We emphasised that “this is an unprecedented impeachment process and every step of the process must be carefully considered, given the obvious legal and political precedent it will create, as well as the significant public interest in the outcome.”
We stated categorically that “It is inconceivable that Parliament will not oppose this application which could result in Parliament being interdicted from carrying out its oversight duty over the President, as mandated by the Constitutional Court.”
Our view was supported by the independent legal opinion of advocate Mokhare SC provided to the Impeachment Committee (IC) wherein he raised a number of compelling reasons why the application should be opposed on legal and constitutional principles and not on the merits of the impeachment, stating, “In this context, the IC’s compliance with the Constitutional Court’s order is not optional. It is a legal and constitutional imperative. The IC cannot suspend its compliance pending the outcome of litigation in a lower court. The IC must proceed with its work and defend its right to proceed against any attempt to interdict that compliance.”
He also stated that, “The IC’s opposition to the interdict application is based purely on legal and constitutional principles: the binding nature of Constitutional Court orders; the principle of judicial hierarchy; the elevated threshold for interdicts against organs of state; the absence of reasonably apprehended irreparable harm; and the balance of convenience favouring continuation of the constitutional process. These are matters of law, not merits.”
Whilst this opinion was requested by the IC and its recommendation to oppose the interdict application was accepted by the majority of the IC members, we believe that the arguments apply equally to the Speaker and would have expected her to oppose the interdict application, which if successful, will delay the IC’s work indefinitely.
We raised this concern with the Speaker in our letter, stating, “Significantly, should the President succeed with the interdict application, it will prevent Parliament and the Impeachment Committee from conducting its constitutional oversight duty at all, not only pending the hearing on 2-4 September 2026 and the subsequent judgment, but also until any appeal is heard and judgment on that appeal is given by the Constitutional Court.”
This would be in breach of section 237 of the Constitution that states that “all constitutional obligations must be performed diligently and without delay”, as well as Rule 129M which states that “the committee must ensure that the enquiry is conducted…within a reasonable timeframe.”
This view was confirmed by Adv Mokhare during our interaction on his legal opinion.
Thus, whilst the IC Chairman will oppose the application for an interdict, it is extremely disappointing that the Speaker will not formally support the IC Chairman in his formal opposition given that this legal and constitutional imperative was imposed on Parliament by the Constitutional Court to hold President Ramaphosa accountable. As no reasons have been given for the Speaker’s decision, one can only speculate that she succumbed to political pressure from the African National Congress.
We will be expressing our deep disappointment at an appropriate time in Parliament, possibly during the next IC meeting on 24 June 2026.
