Key Takeaways
- The Constitutional Court ruled that Parliament’s rejection of the Section 89 Independent Panel report on the Phala Phala scandal was unconstitutional, obliging the National Assembly to initiate an impeachment inquiry against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
- Former ANC MPs Nkosazana Dlamini‑Zuma and Mervyn Dirks (who later defected to uMkhonto weSizwe) voted with the panel’s findings and welcomed the judgment, stating they acted on principle despite facing backlash from their party.
- The panel, chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have breached his oath of office by failing to declare roughly US$580,000 in foreign currency stolen from his Phala Phala game farm, not reporting the theft to authorities, and attempting to conceal the incident.
- ANC MPs, aside from the four dissenters, rallied to shield Ramaphosa from an impeachment committee, a move the Court deemed contrary to the Constitution’s accountability provisions.
- Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, whose earlier 31‑question interrogation of Ramaphosa was dismissed, hailed the ruling as vindication and stressed that the forthcoming impeachment process will force the president to answer substantive questions about the hidden funds and his response to the theft.
- Julius Malema (EFF) called for Ramaphosa’s resignation to allow him to focus on preparing for impeachment, while legal expert Mpumelelo Zikalala warned that resignation would end the impeachment process but stressed that the Court’s judgment is binding on Parliament to restart the inquiry, subject to ongoing criminal proceedings and sub judice constraints.
Background of the Phala Phala Scandal
The Phala Phala controversy emerged in early 2020 when reports surfaced that approximately US$580,000 in foreign currency had been stolen from President Cyril Ramaphosa’s game farm in Limpopo. Allegations claimed that the money was not declared to the South African Revenue Service, that the break‑in was not reported to police, and that Ramaphosa’s security detail was dispatched to Namibia to pursue the suspects instead of involving law‑enforcement authorities. These claims prompted the National Assembly to appoint an independent Section 89 panel to investigate possible violations of the president’s oath of office.
Composition and Findings of the Independent Panel
Chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, the panel examined documentary evidence, witness testimonies, and financial records. Its report concluded that there was prima facie evidence suggesting Ramaphosa may have contravened his constitutional duties by failing to disclose the foreign currency, neglecting to report the theft, and attempting to manage the aftermath through unofficial channels. Ngcobo emphasized, however, that the panel lacked sufficient resources to make a definitive finding of guilt, recommending that a more thoroughly resourced committee be formed to reach a conclusive verdict.
Parliamentary Vote and Party Discipline
When the panel’s report was tabled for a parliamentary decision, the majority of ANC MPs closed ranks to protect the president, voting against adopting the findings. Only four ANC members—Nkosazana Dlamini‑Zuma, Mervyn Dirks, Mosebenzi Zwane, and Supra Mahumapelo—supported the report, thereby breaking party discipline. Their dissent exposed internal tensions within the ANC over accountability and set the stage for a legal challenge to the parliamentary rejection.
Constitutional Court Judgment
Delivering judgment on Friday, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya held that the National Assembly’s outright rejection of the panel’s report violated the Constitution, which obliges Parliament to consider such reports seriously and to initiate appropriate accountability mechanisms, including a potential impeachment process. The Court declared the rejection unconstitutional and ordered Parliament to reconsider the report, effectively triggering the Section 89 impeachment route against Ramaphosa.
Reactions from Dlamini‑Zuma and Dirks
Nkosazana Dlamini‑Zuma welcomed the ruling, stating that the judges had taken the correct decision and reiterating that her vote against the ANC majority was based on principle rather than partisanship. She clarified that, as she is no longer a parliamentarian, it is Parliament’s prerogative to decide on impeachment, but she believes the process is warranted. Mervyn Dirks, who has since defected to uMkhonto weSizwe, expressed elation, noting that he had been insulted and ridiculed by fellow ANC members for standing by his conscience. Dirks argued that, if the impeachment committee were to ask the same 31 questions previously posed by Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, Ramaphosa would struggle to answer without self‑incrimination.
Mahumapelo’s Position
Supra Mahumapelo, still an ANC MP and chair of the Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation, declined to comment, indicating that he would await the ANC National Executive Committee’s deliberations before making any public statement. His silence underscores the delicate balancing act faced by ANC members who must weigh party loyalty against personal convictions regarding accountability.
Mkhwebane’s Vindication
Former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, who underwent her own parliamentary impeachment process in 2021, said she felt vindicated by the Court’s decision. She recalled that after submitting the 31 detailed questions to Ramaphosa, she was rebuked and insulted, yet the Court’s ruling confirms that those questions were legitimate and serious. Mkhwebane stressed that the upcoming impeachment committee will give the president a platform to explain why foreign currency was hidden in his furniture and why he instructed his security chief to pursue the suspects in Namibia rather than involve the police. She framed the process as essential for accountability and transparency, irrespective of the final outcome.
Political Calls for Resignation
Julius Malema, leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and a key figure in bringing the Phala Phala matter to the Constitutional Court, urged Ramaphosa to resign so he could focus on preparing for the impeachment hearings. Malema argued that even after resignation, the impeachment process could continue, as the constitutional mechanisms allow for accountability of former office‑holders. His call reflects the opposition’s strategy to increase pressure on the president while highlighting perceived failures in governance.
Legal Expert’s Perspective
Mpumelelo Zikalala, a legal analyst, differed with Malema on the effect of resignation, asserting that stepping down would terminate the impeachment process because the Constitution ties impeachment proceedings to a sitting president. However, Zikalala agreed that the Court’s judgment is binding on Parliament to restart the inquiry, which would involve re‑submitting the complaint and forming a properly resourced impeachment committee. He cautioned that ongoing criminal investigations and the sub judice rule may limit what witnesses can disclose, as individuals facing prosecution might refuse to testify on matters that could prejudice their legal defence.
Implications for the Impeachment Process
The judgment necessitates that Parliament convene an impeachment committee proportionally representing parties in the National Assembly. Dirks advocated for the inclusion of legal experts—such as a retired judge to chair the committee and advocates to lead evidence—to mitigate partisan biases. The committee will need to summon witnesses with direct, firsthand knowledge of the Phala Phala incident, avoiding reliance on hearsay. Should the process proceed, Ramaphosa will be required to respond to the allegations, potentially addressing the same pointed questions that once challenged Mkhwebane, thereby testing the limits of his explanations and the strength of the evidence against him.
This summary synthesizes the reported events, statements, and legal analysis surrounding the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the Phala Phala scandal and its ramifications for President Cyril Ramaphosa’s political future.