Parliament’s section 89 impeachment committee was divided on Wednesday over whether it should appeal against the Western Cape High Court’s interim interdict halting public impeachment hearings into President Cyril Ramaphosa.Most opposition parties argued that the court ruling threatened parliament’s constitutional oversight powers, while the ANC, FF Plus and PA urged the committee not to challenge the order.The debate followed a legal briefing by senior parliamentary legal adviser Sueanne Isaac, who advised that although the high court had barred the committee from conducting public impeachment hearings, it could continue with preparatory work, including appointing evidence leaders, finalising its terms of reference and preparing for the inquiry.Acting on that legal opinion, the committee also reversed a decision taken last week to invite the authors of the independent panel report to brief MPs. Members voted 16-8, with one abstention, to have the report presented by the committee’s evidence leaders instead, after parliament’s legal advisers concluded that the report had become part of the committee’s proceedings once it was referred by the speaker.The legal advice also prompted a lengthy debate over whether parliament should challenge the high court’s ruling.Propects of successACDP MP Steve Swart argued that the judgment was precedent-setting and should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. He warned that allowing the ruling to remain could delay impeachment proceedings for years through successive court applications and said the dissenting judgment demonstrated there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal.United Africans Transformation (UAT) leader Wonderboy Mahlatsi agreed, saying parliament had a constitutional obligation to defend its institutional independence. He told members that the UAT, ATM, EFF and MK Party had already lodged applications for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court and argued that the limits of judicial intervention in parliamentary processes had to be clarified.MK Party MP John Hlophe said the committee had already resolved to oppose Ramaphosa’s court application and there was no reason to abandon that position after losing in the high court.“Once you decide to embark on litigation, it carries within it the risk that you may lose before the initial hearing. A wise man or a wise woman would carry on and appeal,” Hlophe said.Bosa leader Mmusi Maimane said the judgment appeared to place greater weight on protecting Ramaphosa’s reputation than on the public interest in establishing the truth behind the allegations against the president. He argued that a speedy resolution was in the interest of both Ramaphosa and the country and warned that prolonged litigation could damage confidence in parliament’s accountability processes.ATM leader Vuyo Zungula described the judgment as vague and said the principles underpinning the committee’s earlier decision to oppose Ramaphosa’s application had not changed.“The principles that were prevalent at the time were to protect the constitutional mandate of the committee and the authority of parliament. Those principles have not changed,” he said.Zungula argued that the judgment failed to define what constituted a public impeachment hearing and warned that uncertainty over the scope of the order could effectively prevent parliament from exercising its constitutional oversight powers for years if further appeals followed.EFF MP Omphile Maotwe argued that the Constitutional Court had intended that the independent panel report proceed through parliament’s impeachment process and warned that allowing successive review applications and interim interdicts could enable future presidents to frustrate accountability through litigation.‘Maybe we should appeal’DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach said she had changed her position during the debate.“Having initially been of the view that we should not appeal, I’m persuaded by the arguments of colleagues that perhaps we should appeal,” she said.Breytenbach said there was value in obtaining certainty because the judgment was “somewhat ambiguous and vague” and could have lasting implications for parliament’s constitutional powers.UDM leader Nqabayomzi Kwankwa also backed an appeal, saying the split judgment itself demonstrated there were reasonable prospects of success.He argued that although the order was interim, it had immediate constitutional consequences because it restrained parliament from exercising its constitutional powers while the review application was pending.Kwankwa warned that allowing the judgment to stand without challenge could create a precedent affecting Parliament’s ability to hold not only presidents, but also heads of Chapter 9 institutions and other constitutional office-bearers to account.OppositionANC MP Mika Mahlaule questioned Parliament’s legal opinion, arguing that it did not clearly define the limits of preparatory work or explain what constituted public hearings. He also questioned whether evidence leaders would be permitted to engage with potential witnesses without breaching the court order.Despite those concerns, Mahlaule argued that the committee should not appeal because the interdict was temporary pending the determination of Ramaphosa’s review application.FF Plus MP Wouter Wessels also opposed an appeal, arguing that the committee had little prospect of successfully overturning the interim order. He maintained that the court had suspended only public hearings and not the committee’s broader constitutional mandate, meaning members could continue with preparatory work while awaiting the September review hearing.PA MP Marlon Daniels similarly urged the committee not to appeal. He warned that courts would examine the substance rather than the terminology used by the committee and cautioned against attempting to characterise substantive work as merely preparatory.“A court would look at substance and not terminology,” Daniels said.Daniels argued there was little practical justification for appealing when the review application was expected to be heard within weeks.“We are not protecting an individual person. We are protecting the process, and the record has to survive a court,” he said.The committee is expected to continue with preparatory work, including finalising its terms of reference and appointing evidence leaders, while public impeachment hearings remain suspended pending the outcome of Ramaphosa’s review application.Business Day