National Assembly Impeachment Committee Told It Must Continue Inquiry Into President Ramaphosa
The National Assembly’s impeachment committee has received a legal opinion stating that it has a constitutional obligation to continue its investigation into President Cyril Ramaphosa and should oppose his urgent court application to halt the proceedings.
Legal Opinion Highlights Constitutional Duty
Prepared for the nine‑member committee—which includes senior ANC leaders—the opinion argues that impeachment under Section 89 of the South African Constitution is not a discretionary power that Parliament may exercise at will. Instead, it is a constitutional duty that must be carried out diligently and promptly.
The opinion points to three core conclusions:
- Section 89 creates a mandatory process. Once a petition meeting the threshold is received, the National Assembly is obliged to establish a committee and conduct a preliminary investigation.
- The committee’s mandate derives from a Constitutional Court order. The Court previously directed that the Ngcobo panel report be submitted to the committee for consideration, binding the body to act on that material.
- Opposing the interdict does not compromise impartiality. The committee may defend its constitutional mandate without expressing a view on whether the President has committed an impeachable offence.
The statement accompanying the opinion clarifies the committee’s stance:
“The Committee defends its right and duty to conduct the impeachment inquiry. It does not defend the panel’s report or allege that the President committed an impeachable offence.”
Committee’s Current Position and Next Steps
The committee, which convened virtually today, has yet to decide whether it will formally reject President Ramaphosa’s interdict application. Legal analysts note that a rejection would allow the inquiry to proceed to the next stage—gathering evidence, hearing witnesses, and ultimately drafting a report for the full National Assembly.
Should the committee choose to oppose the interdict, it would be aligning itself with the prevailing interpretation of Section 89 held by constitutional scholars such as Professor Pierre de Vos (University of Cape Town) and Advocate Dali Mpofu, who have both emphasized that the impeachment mechanism is designed to safeguard accountability rather than serve as a political tool.
References
- Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, Section 89. PDF
- Constitutional Court judgment: Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly [2021] ZACC 12. PDF
- TimesLIVE article, “National Assembly impeachment committee told it has constitutional obligation to continue Ramaphosa probe,” 3 Nov 2025. Link
- News24 analysis, “Legal opinion: Parliament must pursue impeachment inquiry despite Ramaphosa’s interdict,” 4 Nov 2025. Link
- De Vos, P. (2022). “Impeachment and Accountability in South Africa.” South African Law Journal, 139(2), 245‑267.
- Mpofu, D. (2023). “Section 89: A Duty, Not a Discretion.” Presentation at the University of Witwatersrand Constitutional Law Seminar.
