The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party has criticised President Cyril Ramaphosa's urgent court application to suspend Parliament's impeachment process, arguing that the matter has already been settled by the Constitutional Court and should proceed without further delay.
The Western Cape High Court is hearing the President's urgent application over two days, during which Ramaphosa is seeking an interdict to halt the work of Parliament's Impeachment Committee.
The President wants the impeachment process suspended pending a judicial review of the Section 89 Independent Panel report, which found that he has a prima facie case to answer in relation to the Phala Phala matter.
The committee was established following a Constitutional Court ruling in May, which found that the National Assembly acted irrationally when it rejected the implementation of the independent panel's findings. The apex court ordered that impeachment proceedings be instituted against the President.
The MK Party, the African Transformation Movement (ATM) and the United Africans Transformation (UAT) are listed as respondents in the application.
Speaking outside the Western Cape High Court ahead of the hearing, MK Party parliamentary leader Dr John Hlophe described the application as an unnecessary use of the court's time.
Hlophe argued that the Constitutional Court's ruling is final and cannot be suspended by another court.
"We believe Ramaphosa is wasting time. He can't interdict an inquiry directed by the apex court. There is no further appeal. Once the Constitutional Court makes a ruling, no other court will have jurisdiction to entertain the matter," Hlophe said.
ATM Member of Parliament Vuyo Zungula also opposed the President's application, saying concerns about potential reputational harm should not outweigh Parliament's constitutional duty to hold the head of state accountable.
Zungula said the President's argument that the continuation of the impeachment process could damage his reputation should not take precedence over Parliament fulfilling its oversight responsibilities.
"Our argument is that you can't elevate the perceived reputational harm of a President above the constitutional obligation of Parliament to hold him accountable," Zungula said.
The outcome of the application will determine whether the Parliamentary Impeachment Committee can continue its work while the review of the Section 89 Independent Panel report remains before the courts.