South Africa’s Constitutional Court has ruled that Parliament acted unlawfully when it blocked further action against President Cyril Ramaphosa over the controversial Phala Phala scandal, reopening the possibility of an impeachment inquiry.
The landmark judgment came after the Economic Freedom Fighters challenged the National Assembly’s December2022 decision to dismiss findings made by the Section89 Independent Panel investigating the matter.
The court found that Parliament’s handling of the process was irrational and inconsistent with constitutional obligations.
The ruling is widely regarded as one of the most significant legal setbacks faced by a sitting South African president since the country’s democratic transition.
At the centre of the dispute was Rule129 of Parliament’s impeachment procedures, which gave lawmakers discretion over whether to proceed with recommendations made by an independent panel.
The EFF argued that this rule allowed political considerations to override constitutional accountability mechanisms, effectively enabling Parliament to ignore evidence presented by independent investigators.
Court orders Parliament to revisit impeachment process
The Constitutional Court agreed with the EFF’s argument, ruling that the National Assembly’s214-to-148 vote rejecting the Section89 report was unconstitutional.
As part of the judgment, Parliament has now been directed to reconsider the panel report and correct the procedural flaws identified by the court.
This effectively revives the possibility of a formal impeachment inquiry into Ramaphosa’s conduct.
The case relates to the ongoing Phala Phala controversy, which first emerged publicly in2022 after allegations that large sums of undeclared cash were stolen from the president’s private farm in Limpopo.
Opposition parties questioned both the origin of the money and whether proper legal procedures were followed after the theft.
The Section89 Independent Panel previously concluded that there was sufficient information warranting further parliamentary investigation into the president’s conduct.
However, the ANC-led majority in Parliament voted against advancing the matter to a full impeachment inquiry.
The Constitutional Court’s latest judgment now overturns that process.
Opposition parties welcome ruling
The Democratic Alliance welcomed the court’s decision and confirmed it would participate fully in the impeachment committee process.
DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis said the party respected the Constitutional Court, the Constitution and the rule of law.
He stated that Parliament must now amend its rules and allow the Section89 report to proceed through the required constitutional process.
The DA said it would approach the matter by focusing on evidence and constitutional responsibilities rather than political rhetoric.
The party also stressed that public office holders must be held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
In its response, the DA drew a distinction between its position and that of the governing African National Congress, accusing the ANC of delaying accountability processes involving senior political figures.
While the ruling does not automatically place Ramaphosa at immediate risk of removal from office, political analysts believe it significantly increases pressure on both the president and the ANC ahead of future parliamentary proceedings.
The judgment is also expected to reignite public debate around executive accountability, parliamentary oversight and constitutional governance in South Africa.
Source: Based on Constitutional Court judgment and public statements from South African political parties.
