President Cyril Ramaphosa during the singing of the National Anthem at the City Hall in Cape Town where he delivered the State of the Nation Address.
Image: Phando Jikelo / RSA Parliament
Thami Magubane, Pule Makgale, Ntsikelelo Qoyo
The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) ruling could go a long way to repair the extensive reputational damage to government institutions that found themselves "scrambling to protect" President Cyril Ramaphosa after the Phala Phala scandal broke into the public domain.
This is according to opposition parties as the Concourt is expected to deliver judgment Friday on whether Parliament acted lawfully when it rejected a report recommending an impeachment inquiry into Ramaphosa.
The dispute centres on a Section 89 independent panel chaired by retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo. The panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence to justify Parliament considering the establishment of an impeachment inquiry against the president.
The findings relate to allegations involving the handling of foreign currency at Ramaphosa's Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo. The panel examined claims that approximately R9.5 million in foreign currency was concealed in a sofa on the property and later stolen, along with questions about whether proper procedures were followed following the incident.
The report concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant further scrutiny through a formal impeachment inquiry.
However, the National Assembly voted by 214 votes to 148 to reject the report. That vote halted the impeachment process before it could proceed to the inquiry stage.
ATM president Vuyolwethu Zungula, who has been at the forefront of the Phala Phala legal battle, posted on X that South Africans must remember that the president is not above the law and that there were a number of laws that were broken.
He also stated in a video posted to social media that the president was highly protected by institutions.
Zungula said: "There are certain principles that ought to guide us as a country: the rule of law and the principle that we are all equal before the law. Now, if any ordinary person would have committed the same crimes as those committed by Ramaphosa, we do not think all these institutions would have kept quiet; they would have acted.
"We are dealing with a person that is highly protected by institutions. As a member of Parliament, it is our duty to ensure he is held to account. We are going to continue with this process until Mr Ramaphosa is impeached and a motion of no confidence is passed against him."
ActionSA national chairperson Michael Beaumont said the Phala Phala scandal saw one government institution after another fall over themselves in a bid to clear the president of any accountability for a patently obvious breach of the country's laws.
"Parliament was one of those institutions, and this is the essence of the case before the Constitutional Court. Parliament refused to institute proceedings to investigate the president and rushed to clear him while Parliament still enjoyed an ANC majority prior to the 2024 general elections.
"The case before the Constitutional Court seeks to declare the actions of Parliament as unconstitutional in its failure to hold the president to account. ActionSA believes the Constitutional Court must declare the actions of Parliament as unconstitutional and force Parliament to consider the case against the president," he said.
The DA declined to comment on the matter, saying they will await the court outcome before speaking out.
Analyst and Director of Surgetower Associates Management Consultancy Siseko Maposa said if the ConCourt rules against Parliament, it could push the Government of National Unity (GNU) to the brink.
“That would test the GNU to breaking point, and Cyril Ramaphosa’s political future would hang by a thread. Conversely, a ruling against the EFF and ATM would mark another successful—albeit temporary—procedural deflection for the President.
“I say ‘temporary deflection’ because... regardless of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, Phala Phala will remain a spectre over Ramaphosa, both legally and politically, long after his tenure ends."
Maposa added the Public Protector, South African Reserve Bank (SARB), and South African Revenue Service (SARS) have all cleared Ramaphosa.
“However, the Public Protector’s report is under review in light of new evidence, SARB’s findings are disputed, and ActionSA recently uncovered a damning Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) report—nearly two years old—which finds senior Presidential Protection Unit members guilty of obstructing justice, falsifying documents, and invoking the President’s name to cover up investigative irregularities. Simply put, Ramaphosa may be able to dodge inquiries and court processes for now, but he will not be as successful in dodging history.”
Anda Mbikwana, a commentator who specialises in matters of constitutional law and democratic governance, described the Phala Phala matter as a "constitutional reckoning — one that will determine whether South Africa's hard-won democratic framework means what it says, or whether it bends to the weight of office".
Mbikwana said the role of the apex court is to determine if Parliament acted rationally and lawfully in its application of the law.
"The Constitutional Court's role in all of this is not to adjudicate guilt or innocence in a criminal sense, nor to serve as an extension of party politics. Its mandate is distinctly constitutional: to ensure that the processes undertaken by the National Assembly were rational, lawful, and procedurally fair — and that Parliament neither overstepped nor abdicated its oversight responsibilities."
NMU lecturer and political analyst Ntsikelelo Breakfast said an adverse ruling against Ramaphosa would deal a significant blow to the GNU and potentially shape the succession battle within the ANC.
Cape Times