MK party and EFF cry foul after ConCourt blocks Ramaphosa impeachment appeal

The Constitutional Court's decision to deny leave for an appeal against an interim interdict protecting President Cyril Ramaphosa has sparked criticism from the MK party and the EFF. Both parties argue that the ruling weakens Parliament's constitutional oversight powers and delays accountability. The Constitutional Court dismissed an urgent appeal on 12 January 2026, stating that it was not in the interests of justice to hear the matter at this time, as the outcome of the Western Cape High Court review would render the interim interdict null and void.

The MK party's spokesperson, Sifiso Mahlangu, expressed concern over the decision, stating that it highlights growing unease about accountability in South Africa's democratic system. He emphasized that judicial independence must be seen as impartial, consistent, and free from fear or favor. The MK party stressed that accountability cannot be indefinitely deferred, as Ramaphosa will ultimately be held to account.

The EFF, while disappointed, rejected the Constitutional Court's reasoning, arguing that the imminent determination of the review application was flawed. They pointed to past judicial delays, including the 15-month turnaround in the Phala Phala case, and warned that the suspension of the Section 89 Impeachment Committee undermines Parliament's constitutional mandate.

Both parties emphasized that the decision leaves the Western Cape High Court's judgment in place, raising concerns about the separation of powers and future interventions by the courts. Despite their criticism, both the MK party and EFF reiterated their respect for the judiciary while insisting that Parliament's constitutional authority must be defended.