Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee has resolved to formally oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent court application to halt its inquiry.

Following a crucial legal briefing, the committee confirmed it will file a notice to oppose the interdict ahead of the Friday deadline.

The decision sets up a high-stakes constitutional showdown in the Western Cape High Court, scheduled for July 15 and 16.

In a bid to present a unified legislative front, the committee has requested that National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza join them in defending Parliament’s constitutional mandate.

Ramaphosa launched his urgent application last week, aiming to block the committee from proceeding with the impeachment process tied to the Phala Phala scandal.

Committee members emphasise that they remain legally bound by the Constitutional Court's directives until a competent court orders otherwise.

The committee's legal strategy will focus on explaining its constitutional obligations clearly to the court, protecting its institutional capacity to function independently and resisting any form of executive interference.

The committee will meet on Wednesday to consider its draft terms of reference and outline the process for appointing independent evidence leaders.

ActionSA said the committee’s decision followed a formal letter it sent to Didiza and Impeachment Committee chairperson Makashule Gana, which urged Parliament to resist any attempts to frustrate the implementation of the Constitutional Court's judgment on the Phala Phala matter.

ActionSA parliamentary leader Athol Trollip hailed the committee's decision as a victory for constitutional accountability and parliamentary independence.

“Parliament has a constitutional duty to hold the executive accountable, to exercise oversight over the conduct of public office bearers, and to ensure that no person, regardless of their office, is placed beyond scrutiny," Trollip stated.

"The Section 89 Committee exists precisely to determine whether the conduct of the President warrants the serious constitutional consequences contemplated by Section 89 of the Constitution. That process must be allowed to proceed without interference, delay, or political shielding.”

Trollip also aimed sharp criticism at certain political parties within the newly formed Government of National Unity (GNU). He accused them of "prevarication" and “speaking out of both sides of their mouths” by professing support for accountability while avoiding a clear position on the President's attempt to halt the inquiry.

ActionSA has called on Didiza to ensure that the National Assembly robustly defends its constitutional powers by reflecting the committee's opposition to the interdict.

Warning against legislative complacency, Trollip reminded the Speaker that the apex court had already found Parliament failed South Africans once in its handling of the Phala Phala matter, adding that Parliament must not place itself on the wrong side of the Constitution a second time.