South Africa’s Constitutional Court on Thursday reopened the constitutional pathway that could ultimately lead to impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa, ruling that Parliament acted unlawfully when it blocked further action over the Phala Phala cash scandal in 2022.
In a unanimous judgment, the country’s highest court found that the National Assembly acted inconsistently with the Constitution when lawmakers voted against adopting the findings of an independent Section 89 panel that had identified prima facie evidence of possible constitutional violations and misconduct by Ramaphosa. The court also declared aspects of the parliamentary rules governing the impeachment process unconstitutional.
The ruling does not remove Ramaphosa from office or determine whether he committed wrongdoing. Instead, the court focused on whether Parliament fulfilled its constitutional oversight obligations when it halted the impeachment process before a full inquiry could take place. The judgment sends the matter back to Parliament and revives the Section 89 process, potentially paving the way for the establishment of an impeachment committee.
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya said Parliament’s handling of the matter was inconsistent with constitutional principles governing accountability and oversight. The court also invalidated aspects of the parliamentary process that allowed lawmakers to terminate the proceedings prematurely.
The decision marks a major political setback for Ramaphosa and revives one of the most damaging controversies of his presidency at a time when the governing African National Congress is politically weaker than it was during the original vote in 2022. Following the 2024 national elections, the ANC lost its outright parliamentary majority and now governs through coalition arrangements, potentially exposing Ramaphosa to greater political pressure. However, analysts say the ANC still appears to retain enough parliamentary support to make the two-thirds threshold required for impeachment difficult to achieve.
The Phala Phala scandal stems from a February 2020 burglary at Ramaphosa’s private game farm in Limpopo province, where thieves stole a large quantity of U.S. currency concealed inside furniture at the property. Ramaphosa said the money estimated at about $580,000 came from a legitimate buffalo sale to Sudanese businessman Hazim Mustafa.
The matter became a national political crisis in June 2022 after former intelligence chief Arthur Fraser filed a criminal complaint accusing Ramaphosa of concealing the robbery, improperly using state resources to investigate the theft and potentially violating foreign exchange and anti-corruption laws. Fraser alleged that as much as $4 million had been stored at the farm, an allegation Ramaphosa has denied.
Public scrutiny intensified over why such a large amount of foreign currency was allegedly being kept at the farm instead of within the banking system. Opposition parties argued the case raised serious constitutional questions involving transparency, tax compliance and abuse of office.
Under mounting pressure, Parliament established an independent panel chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo to assess whether sufficient evidence existed to justify impeachment proceedings. In late 2022, the panel concluded there was prima facie evidence suggesting Ramaphosa may have violated the Constitution and acted inconsistently with his office.
Despite the panel’s findings, ANC lawmakers voted in December 2022 against proceeding with a formal impeachment inquiry, effectively halting the process and allowing Ramaphosa to survive the immediate political threat. Opposition parties including the Economic Freedom Fighters and the African Transformation Movement later challenged that decision in court, arguing Parliament had failed in its constitutional duty to hold the president accountable.
Although the Constitutional Court revived the impeachment pathway, previous investigations did not result in criminal findings against the president. The South African Reserve Bank and other investigations previously did not find sufficient evidence to pursue charges or sanctions against Ramaphosa. No criminal charges have been brought against him in connection with the matter.
Ramaphosa said on Thursday that he respected the Constitutional Court’s judgment and remained committed to the rule of law while continuing to deny wrongdoing.
Under South African law, removing a sitting president through impeachment requires the support of two-thirds of the National Assembly, a threshold analysts say remains difficult to achieve despite the ANC’s weakened parliamentary position.
The ruling could have consequences extending beyond Ramaphosa’s presidency, reinforcing the Constitutional Court’s role in checking executive power and ensuring Parliament fulfills its oversight responsibilities.
