President Cyril Ramaphosa has been accused of deploying a “Stalingrad strategy” to delay the parliamentary impeachment process against him, with ATM leader Vuyo Zungula now pushing for the Western Cape High Court review application to be heard as early as August.In a strongly worded response to Ramaphosa’s review application, Zungula, who is listed as the fifth respondent in Ramaphosa’s review application, argues that the president’s court bid is “ill-founded” and designed to frustrate a constitutional accountability process flowing from the Phala Phala scandal.Ramaphosa approached the Western Cape High Court on Tuesday seeking to review and set aside parliament’s decision to establish the committee, arguing that the process was unlawful and procedurally flawed. Zungula’s legal team said the president was seeking to “delay being subjected to a fair and constitutional process”, describing the litigation strategy as “untenable and undesirable”.“The impeachment proceedings should continue notwithstanding the existence of your client’s application,” Zungula’s attorneys wrote, warning that any attempt to place the inquiry in abeyance pending the review could itself amount to contempt of a Constitutional Court ruling compelling parliament to hold the impeachment inquiry.The ATM leader further accused Ramaphosa of attempting to improperly interfere in parliamentary processes after the president allegedly threatened to seek an interdict against parliament to prevent the inquiry from proceeding.“It is unprecedented and entirely inappropriate for one organ of state, in particular the president, to attempt to interdict the proceedings of another, being the National Assembly,” the letter states.The impeachment process stems from the Constitutional Court judgment that found parliament failed to hold Ramaphosa accountable over the Phala Phala farm saga. Parliament subsequently established an impeachment committee to determine whether the president committed serious violations of the constitution or the law.Zungula’s lawyers argued that courts have repeatedly cautioned against interfering in parliamentary committee work before the National Assembly has adopted or rejected committee findings.The correspondence also warns that any interdict application by Ramaphosa “would clearly constitute an abuse of court”.New timeline proposedIn a move likely to pile pressure on both the presidency and parliament, Zungula has now proposed that parties approach the judge president of the Western Cape High Court to allocate hearing dates between August 10 and 12 2026, on an expedited basis.His proposed timetable includes the dispatching of the Rule 53 record by June 10, supplementary founding papers by June 17, answering and replying affidavits by 15 July, and heads of argument by August 3.Zungula’s legal team also questioned why Ramaphosa requested the Rule 53 record without seeking shortened timeframes, despite previously launching a similar application.Meanwhile, the DA has backed calls for parliament to continue with the impeachment process despite the pending court review. DA parliamentary leader George Michalakis said parliament “must be allowed to conduct its oversight and accountability role unobstructed”.“The parliamentary impeachment process must not stall while President Ramaphosa’s review application unfolds before the courts,” Steenhuisen said.He said parliament must urgently finalise the rules and terms of reference for the impeachment committee and allow it to begin its work, noting that the Constitutional Court had already ordered parliament to fulfil this obligation.The DA also took aim at Ramaphosa’s indication in court papers that he may seek an interdict should parliament proceed.“Such a step would therefore come down to the head of state actively preventing parliament from complying with a Constitutional Court order and be nothing but delay tactics,” Steenhuisen said.“The country cannot afford for this matter to be dragged out unnecessarily.”The impeachment process stems from the Constitutional Court judgment that found parliament failed to hold Ramaphosa accountable over the Phala Phala farm saga. Parliament subsequently established an impeachment committee to determine whether the president committed serious violations of the constitution or the law.TimesLIVE