IN CONVERSATION WITH DR SHADI MAGANOE
Loading player...
In May this year, the Constitutional Court ruled that
Parliament had acted inconsistently with the Constitution
when it decided not to proceed with impeachment
proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa following
the Section 89 Independent Panel's Phala Phala report.
The Court ordered that the process be revived, but the
President subsequently obtained interim relief from the
Western Cape High Court, temporarily halting the
proceedings pending further legal action. President
Ramaphosa is facing misconduct charges in connection
with the storage and theft of US dollars on his Phala Phala
farm.
The litigation has reignited debate about the constitutional
framework governing presidential impeachment, the
respective roles of Parliament and the courts, and how the
principle of separation of powers applies when
constitutional accountability is at stake.
Joining us to unpack the legal framework aspect of these
proceedings is Dr Shadi Maganoe a senior lecturer here at
the wits school of law.
Parliament had acted inconsistently with the Constitution
when it decided not to proceed with impeachment
proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa following
the Section 89 Independent Panel's Phala Phala report.
The Court ordered that the process be revived, but the
President subsequently obtained interim relief from the
Western Cape High Court, temporarily halting the
proceedings pending further legal action. President
Ramaphosa is facing misconduct charges in connection
with the storage and theft of US dollars on his Phala Phala
farm.
The litigation has reignited debate about the constitutional
framework governing presidential impeachment, the
respective roles of Parliament and the courts, and how the
principle of separation of powers applies when
constitutional accountability is at stake.
Joining us to unpack the legal framework aspect of these
proceedings is Dr Shadi Maganoe a senior lecturer here at
the wits school of law.
