Political parties are divided about the Western Cape High Court’s decision to grant President Cyril Ramaphosa an interim interdict halting parliament’s section 89 impeachment.The interdict was issued pending the outcome of his review application challenging the legality of the independent panel report that triggered the process.In a majority judgment on Friday, the full bench ordered that parliament’s section 89 impeachment committee may not proceed with public hearings until the review application has been determined. One judge would have dismissed the application, but the majority found Ramaphosa had met the requirements for interim relief.ANC MP Mikateko Mahlaule welcomed the ruling, saying it affirmed that the president, like every South African, was entitled to seek relief through the courts. “We respect the judgment that has been handed down today and we call on all parties to respect it,” Mahlaule said. “This judgment has nothing to do with whether the president is guilty or not. It simply says the president sought relief pending the review being finalised.”Mahlaule said the ANC had argued earlier this week that there was little point in the impeachment committee proceeding with matters such as appointing evidence leaders while the court’s judgment was pending. “We thought there was no need to continue while the judgment was still pending. We have been proven right by the judgment.”This is another lesson that our constitution is an evolving one. Judges will, at times, have to interpret it. At the end of the day, we are part of the rule of law, we abide by the judgment and parliament must continue with its work— Mabine Seabe, Rise Mzansi communications director Responding to criticism that the ruling delays parliament’s constitutional duty to hold the executive accountable, Mahlaule said the accountability process had merely been paused: “Parliament will continue with its work after the review application. It will continue within the parameters of what would have been determined in that review.”Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said parliament would study the judgment before deciding on its next steps. “We have a duty, together with our legal advisers, to scrutinise the details of the judgment so that we can have a proper response and determine how we proceed from here,” Mothapo said.Rise Mzansi communications director Mabine Seabe said the party accepted the court’s ruling, despite wanting to study the judgment in full. “We note the court’s judgment. Ultimately we abide by the court’s judgment,” Seabe said. “This is another lesson that our constitution is an evolving one. Judges will, at times, have to interpret it. At the end of the day, we are part of the rule of law, we abide by the judgment and parliament must continue with its work.”The DA said it would study the court’s reasoning before deciding on its next steps but maintained the ruling did not bring the impeachment process to an end. DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach said the judgment was unusual because one judge found the president had not met the threshold for an interim interdict while the other two concluded that he had.“We haven’t read the judgment yet, so it’s difficult to comment on the reasoning,” she said.Breytenbach said the order only prevented the impeachment committee from holding public hearings and did not stop its administrative work. “That doesn’t mean we can’t carry on with the administrative duties, appointing evidence leaders, settling the witness list and sorting out the terms of reference. Those things take time anyway.”She said the ruling would delay the process but was “not necessarily a fatal delay. For the president, it’s merely postponing the inevitable.”The president reaffirms his respect of judicial independence and separation of powers enshrined in our constitution. The president will continue to co-operate with, and abide by, processes of accountability— PresidencyThe EFF also criticised the ruling. EFF MP Nontando Nolutshungu said it was “really shocking”, arguing that the Constitutional Court had directed parliament to proceed with the impeachment inquiry.“It was the Constitutional Court that sent parliament to proceed with the impeachment committee, but now the high court has done the opposite. So it’s very concerning,” she said.Nolutshungu said the party would study the judgment before deciding on its next steps but accused Ramaphosa of repeatedly avoiding accountability. “He’s got a history of avoiding accountability. There is definitely something that this man is running away from, and to have such a head of state is embarrassing.”The MK Party was equally critical of the judgment. MP Visvin Reddy described the ruling as “absolutely shocking”, saying the split decision demonstrated disagreement among the judges. “Every South African needs to be concerned about the outcome of today’s court hearing,” he said.He argued that the impeachment inquiry was intended to establish what happened in the Phala Phala matter and accused Ramaphosa of attempting to delay the process.“If he were innocent, as he claims to be, what’s stopping the impeachment process from continuing where he can go and tell his side of the story? Obviously he’s trying every trick in the book to delay the truth from coming out because he knows it’s going to affect him and his position as president.”The Presidency said Ramaphosa respected the judgment: “The president reaffirms his respect of judicial independence and separation of powers enshrined in our constitution. The president will continue to co-operate with, and abide by, processes of accountability.”Business Day