Opposition parties urge court to reject Ramaphosa's Phala Phala interdict

Opposition parties, including the African Transformation Movement ATM, Economic Freedom Fighters EFF, uMkhonto Wesizwe MK, and United Africans Transformation UAT, argued that granting the interdict would infringe on Parliament's authority. Advocate Anton Katz SC, representing the ATM, stated that the court would be "cutting into the lane of Parliament" by granting the interdict. The impeachment committee, chaired by Rise Mzansi's Makashule Gana, also opposed the application.

Ramaphosa's legal team, led by advocate Wim Trengove SC, contended that proceeding with public impeachment hearings would cause "irreparable harm" and be "humiliating" for the President, especially if the Section 89 panel's report, which found he had a case to answer regarding the theft of $580,000 at his farm, is later found invalid. However, advocates for the opposition and the impeachment committee, including advocate William Mokhare SC, argued that the core issue was the separation of powers and that the President had not demonstrated irreparable harm. They asserted that the committee would ensure a fair process and protect the President's rights.

Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing MK and UAT, emphasized that the court should not interfere with the legislature's functioning, as Parliament is the only means for South Africans to hold the Pres