MK party and EFF cry foul after ConCourt blocks Ramaphosa impeachment appeal
· Citizen
The Constitutional Court’s refusal to grant direct access for leave to appeal the interim interdict shielding President Cyril Ramaphosa has drawn sharp criticism from both the MK party and the EFF, who warn that the ruling risks weakening Parliament’s constitutional oversight powers and delaying accountability.
Visit turconews.click for more information.
The ConCourt on Wednesday, 12 January 2026, dismissed an urgent bid to appeal the Western Cape High Court ruling that halted Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala impeachment inquiry, refusing direct access and declining leave to appeal.
It concluded that “it is not in the interests of justice” to hear the matter at this stage, given the imminent determination of the review in the Western Cape Division of the High Court, the outcome of which will render the interim interdict moot.
Legal action
Several political parties, including the ATM, EFF, United Africans Transformation and MK party, had approached the ConCourt seeking to overturn the ruling of the Western Cape High Court that granted Ramaphosa an interdict.
As a result, the decision halted the public hearings of Parliament’s impeachment committee, pending the president’s review application against a Section 89 independent panel report.
Concerns
The MK party has voiced concern following the apex court’s refusal to grant direct access to leave to appeal the interim interdict.
MK party spokesperson Sifiso Mahlangu said the decision underscored growing unease about accountability in South Africa’s democratic system.
“While we respect the authority of our courts, this decision reinforces growing public concern about a system that appears increasingly reluctant to hold those in power to account,” Mahlangu stated.
Judicial independence
He added that judicial independence must not only exist in law but must be “seen and experienced by the public as impartial, consistent and free from fear or favour.”
The MK party stressed that accountability cannot be deferred indefinitely.
“Mr Ramaphosa will ultimately be held to account, and the will of the people cannot be suppressed forever,” Mahlangu said.
EFF disappointed
The EFF echoed this sentiment, expressing disappointment at the Constitutional Court’s refusal to hear the matter directly.
It argued that the Court’s reasoning – that the review application in the Western Cape High Court is “imminent” – was flawed.
“The Constitutional Court has concluded that no case has been made out for leave to file a replying affidavit and that it is not in the interests of justice to hear the matter at this stage, given the ‘imminent determination’ of the review application,” the EFF noted.
“We reject the characterisation that the determination of the review is imminent. The review is scheduled for 2 and 3 September, but there is no certainty as to when judgment will be handed down thereafter.”
Judicial delays
The party pointed to judicial delays in past high‑profile cases, including the Phala Phala matter, which took 15 months for judgment despite constitutional expectations of a three‑to‑six‑month turnaround.
Ramaphosa wants to overturn the panel’s findings after it concluded that he has questions to answer regarding the theft of approximately $580 000 (about R9.6 million) from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.
Review
The review is set to be heard from 2 to 4 September by the Western Cape High Court.
“A matter being scheduled for hearing does not mean its judgment is imminent,” the EFF said. “Parliament cannot have its constitutional powers placed in limbo indefinitely.”
The EFF warned that the continued suspension of the Section 89 Impeachment Committee undermines Parliament’s constitutional mandate.
“It is meaningless for Parliament to continue administrative work if the Committee is prevented from proceeding with its investigative mandate,” the party argued.
Respecting judiciary
Both parties emphasised that the refusal leaves the Western Cape High Court’s judgment operative, raising unresolved constitutional questions about separation of powers.
“If a court can halt a parliamentary process of accountability without urgent and final determination of its legality, it creates uncertainty about future interventions,” the EFF cautioned.
Despite their criticism, both the MK party and EFF reiterated respect for the judiciary while insisting that Parliament’s constitutional authority must be defended.