President Cyril Ramaphosa is under growing pressure following last Friday’s Constitutional Court judgment on Phala Phala, with the Economic Freedom Fighters calling for the immediate establishment of an impeachment inquiry.
Image: Oupa Mokoena
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has accused President Cyril Ramaphosa of attempting to delay accountability, following reports that Ramaphosa is considering a judicial review of the Section 89 Independent Panel Report, regarding the Phala Phala saga.
On Friday, the Constitutional Court ruled that Parliament acted unlawfully when it voted in 2022 to reject the Section 89 independent panel report into allegations linked to Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm.
The court found Parliament’s decision irrational and inconsistent with the Constitution and ordered that the report be reconsidered, effectively reopening the possibility of an impeachment inquiry.
The EFF said the reports revealed a desperate litigation strategy.
“South Africans must be reminded that before Cyril Ramaphosa abused the ANC's parliamentary majority to shield himself from accountability, he had already indicated his intention to challenge the Section 89 Panel Report through the courts.
“On 5 December 2022, Ramaphosa formally launched an application seeking to review and set aside the findings of the panel after it found that there was prima facie evidence that he violated the Constitution and his oath of office,” the party’s national spokesperson, Sinawo Thambo, said in a statement.
The case was brought by the EFF and the African Transformation Movement, which argued that Parliament failed in its oversight duties by closing the matter prematurely.
The ruling means Parliament must now revisit the panel’s findings and determine whether to proceed with a full impeachment inquiry.
The controversy stems from a February 2020 burglary at Ramaphosa’s farm in Limpopo, during which about $580,000 - approximately R8 million at the time - was allegedly stolen from furniture on the property.
The EFF says President Cyril Ramaphosa is attempting to delay accountability after reports emerged that he is considering a judicial review of the Section 89 Independent Panel Report into the Phala Phala saga.
Image: Supplied
In a statement released this week, the EFF said the ANC used its parliamentary majority on 13 December 2022 to irrationally and unconstitutionally suppress the report and block the impeachment process. Ramaphosa abandoned his review application.
“In May 2023, his spokesperson openly admitted that the President no longer wished to pursue the review because Parliament's unlawful vote had rendered the report ‘moot’ and of ‘no practical and legal consequence’.”
According to Thambo, the sequence of events exposed Ramaphosa as a constitutional delinquent who had never sought genuine judicial clarity on the merits of the report, but instead relied on political manipulation and procedural delay to evade accountability.
“If Ramaphosa truly believed that the Independent Panel Report was fundamentally defective, irrational, or unlawful, he would have pursued his review application to finality in 2022 and 2023.
“Instead, he opportunistically withdrew the matter once he believed the ANC's parliamentary majority had permanently buried the report.”
He said the Constitutional Court had correctly declared the parliamentary vote unconstitutional and invalid.
“Ramaphosa is contemplating a review application once again in order to hide behind court proceedings and to delay, frustrate, and ultimately avoid the inevitable impeachment inquiry.
“This conduct demonstrates profound disrespect not only for Parliament, but also for the judiciary and the constitutional order itself.”
He said the EFF maintained that the courts should dismiss “with contempt” any renewed attempt by Ramaphosa to litigate against the Section 89 Independent Panel Report nearly four years after its publication.
“The Constitutional Court, through our diligence as the EFF, has already restored constitutional order by invalidating the ANC's unlawful parliamentary protection racket.
“The next step must be the immediate establishment of the impeachment inquiry contemplated by Section 89 of the Constitution.”
Following Friday's ruling, Ramaphosa said he respects the Constitutional Court’s judgment reaffirming that no person is above the law and that allegations must be subjected to due process without fear, favour, or prejudice.
“President Cyril Ramaphosa respects the Constitutional Court’s judgment and reaffirms his commitment to the Constitution, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law,” Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said.
He said Ramaphosa has consistently provided his full assistance to the various inquiries into the matter.
“President Ramaphosa maintains that no person is above the law and that any allegations should be subjected to due process without fear, favour or prejudice.
“He calls on all South Africans to respect the Constitutional Court judgment and all judicial institutions.”
Parliament said it had noted and respected the Constitutional Court’s ruling in the matter brought by the EFF challenging the Sixth Parliament’s handling of the Section 89 Independent Panel Report relating to Ramaphosa.
“Parliament will carefully study and consider the Court’s judgment and its implications for the procedures of the National Assembly,” Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said.
National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza will now have to consider the latest efforts to have Ramaphosa removed from office.
This comes after the MK Party wrote to Didiza on Saturday, requesting that a motion of no confidence against the under-fire President be heard in Parliament.
The MK Party wants the motion to be decided through a secret ballot, but the Speaker must first determine whether the motion will proceed in Parliament.
Calls continue to mount from political parties for Ramaphosa to step down following the judgment.
Questions were sent to Magwenya to comment on the claims made by the EFF against Ramaphosa, however, no response was received from the Presidency before the article was published.
IOL Politics