Johannesburg: The Constitutional Court of South Africa has dealt a significant blow to parliament’s handling of the Phala Phala matter, ruling that key aspects of the National Assembly’s Section 89 impeachment process were unconstitutional and invalid.
In a landmark judgment in the case brought by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM) against the Speaker of the National Assembly and others, the Constitutional Court found that Rule 129I of the National Assembly was inconsistent with the Constitution.
The court further declared that the National Assembly’s December 2022 decision to reject the Section 89 independent panel report into President Cyril Ramaphosa was irrational and unconstitutional.
As a result, the matter must now be referred to Parliament’s impeachment committee for a full investigative process.
The ruling effectively overturns the decision by the ANC-majority National Assembly not to adopt findings made by the independent panel chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, which had concluded there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated his oath of office in relation to approximately $580,000 that was stolen his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.
The scandal first emerged in 2022 after former State Security Agency director-general Arthur Fraser laid criminal charges against Ramaphosa, alleging that the theft had been concealed and that unofficial methods were used to investigate the crime.
The Section 89 panel’s report had recommended that Parliament consider initiating impeachment proceedings, but lawmakers voted against adopting the report in December 2022, effectively halting the process.
The Constitutional Court has now ruled that Parliament failed to properly exercise its constitutional obligations when it rejected the report.
Ramaphosa has, in the meantime, reaffirmed his commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law following the judgment. In a statement, the president says he respects the ruling of the apex court and remains committed to upholding the independence of the judiciary and constitutional democracy.
“President Ramaphosa has been consistent in providing his full assistance to the various enquiries into this matter and has stressed that no individual is above the law and that all allegations must be subjected to due legal processes “without fear, favour or prejudice,” presidency spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya said.
Political parties have welcomed the judgment, with the EFF declaring this a significant victory for “us, the people of South Africa and our democracy,” they said in a statement. The red berets have also called for the immediate implementation of the judgment and the reinstatement of all constitutional accountability processes against Ramaphosa.
The GOOD Party says the Court’s ruling is yet another setback for public trust in political representatives. “The matter will cast a deep shadow over local government elections later this year,” elaborated Brett Herron, GOOD Secretary-General.
Meanwhile, the African Transformation Movement (ATM) is calling for an impeachment committee to be convened “without delay”.
“The work of this committee must be conducted openly and lawfully, and for the President to cooperate fully with every constitutional and investigative process. We reject both impunity and trial by slogan, said Zama Ntshona, ATM national spokesperson.
Rise Mzansi says the principle is simple: no one is above the law. “The Phala Phala matter has cast a long shadow over our accountability system. Parliament now has a second chance to do the right thing and remove that shadow through a transparent, well-structured process. It must not squander it,” leader Songezo Zibi said.
In the meantime, parliament, in a short statement, says it notes the judgement and ‘will carefully study and consider the Court’s judgment and its implications for the procedures of the National Assembly’.
Legal experts say the judgment reinforces the accountability role of Parliament and clarifies the constitutional standards governing impeachment proceedings against a sitting president.