Key Takeaways
- The Constitutional Court ruled that Parliament’s use of a procedural rule to avoid discussing the Section 89 panel report on Phala Phala was unconstitutional, a decisive victory for the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).
- President Cyril Ramaphosa now faces a real prospect of an impeachment inquiry or resignation, with opposition parties emboldened after the ANC lost its parliamentary majority in the 2024 election.
- The EFF, led by Julius Malema, has positioned itself as a king‑maker, using the judgment to demand accountability and to strengthen its political influence, including a coalition government with the ANC in Gauteng.
- The Democratic Alliance (DA) under new leader Geordin Hill‑Lewis has pledged to hold the president to the highest standards, refusing to grant any special treatment based on office.
- The ANC is internally divided; while it accepted the court’s judgment, senior figures fear that a prolonged impeachment process could further erode the party’s already declining support, with Deputy President Paul Mashatile seen as a potential successor.
- Action SA’s use of access‑to‑information laws secured the release of the police investigating directorate’s (Ipid) report on Phala Phala, which will likely be fed into the impeachment committee and highlights off‑book investigations.
- The judgment marks a turning point for South Africa’s constitutional democracy, reinforcing the principle that no office‑holder is above accountability and setting the stage for possible short‑term political realignments and long‑term reforms.
Background on the Section 89 Panel Report
In June 2022 the Section 89 ad hoc panel released its findings on the alleged Phala Phala scandal involving President Cyril Ramaphosa. The report suggested possible misconduct, prompting the president to consider resignation until senior ANC leaders persuaded him to stay. The controversy lay not only in the substance of the allegations but also in Parliament’s decision to sidestep a full debate by invoking a procedural rule that prevented the report from being tabled and voted on. This maneuver became the focal point of the legal challenge that eventually reached the Constitutional Court.
Constitutional Court Judgment and EFF Victory
On 8 May 2026 the Constitutional Court delivered a landmark judgment declaring the parliamentary rule used to bypass discussion of the Section 89 report unconstitutional. The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), which had initiated the case, celebrated a “slam‑dunk” win, with costs awarded in its favor. Chief Justice Mandisa Maya’s ruling was hailed as a significant affirmation of the rule of law, and EFF leader Julius Malema reacted with evident satisfaction, seeing the decision as both a vindication of his party’s legal strategy and an opportunity to bolster his own political standing amid ongoing legal troubles.
Implications for President Ramaphosa
The judgment reopens the possibility that Parliament will now be compelled to confront the Section 89 report directly, potentially leading to an impeachment inquiry under Section 89 of the Constitution. Ramaphosa, known for preferring diplomatic negotiation over confrontational politics, may find himself unwilling or unable to endure a protracted committee hearing. His legal team has already prepared detailed critiques of the panel’s report, but the prospect of facing a empowered opposition in a transformed parliamentary landscape raises the question of whether he will resign to avoid a damaging process or defend himself before the impeachment committee.
Shifts in Parliamentary Power After 2024
The 2024 national election stripped the African National Congress (ANC) of its outright majority, resulting in a more balanced and assertive opposition. Parties such as the EFF and the Democratic Alliance (DA) now wield greater influence over legislative proceedings, including any impeachment process. This altered dynamic means that Ramaphosa can no longer rely on ANC dominance to shield him from scrutiny; instead, he must navigate a parliament where opposition parties can demand accountability and shape the agenda.
EFF as King‑Maker and Political Maneuvering
Julius Malema’s immediate response to the judgment was to call for Ramaphosa’s resignation and outline how he would interrogate the president on an impeachment committee. Beyond the legal triumph, the EFF has translated its courtroom success into political capital, forming a coalition government with the ANC in Gauteng—a possible blueprint for reconfiguring the national Government of National Unity (GNU). Malema’s ongoing criminal appeal (related to a firearm offence) does not diminish his political clout; rather, the judgment offers him a platform to portray himself as a defender of good governance while leveraging his proximity to the ANC.
Democratic Alliance’s Stance on Accountability
The DA, under newly elected leader Geordin Hill‑Lewis, issued a firm statement affirming respect for the Constitutional Court and the Constitution while emphasizing that no office‑holder, however senior, should be placed above accountability. Hill‑Lewis stressed that the DA would be guided by facts and evidence presented to any committee, refusing to prejudge outcomes but also rejecting any notion of preferential treatment. This position signals that the DA will be a rigorous participant in any impeachment proceedings, seeking to uphold constitutional rigor.
ANC’s Internal Dilemma
The ANC faces a tough choice: abide by the court’s judgment and potentially allow an impeachment process that could further damage its waning popularity, or rally behind Ramaphosa to avert a divisive showdown. Historical precedent—such as the ANC’s handling of Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla scandal—shows the party’s tendency to protect its leader despite public calls for resignation. However, declining poll numbers, especially in metropolitan areas, and the unpopularity of potential successor Deputy President Paul Mashatile complicate the calculus. The ANC’s national executive committee will need to weigh the short‑term political cost of defending Ramaphosa against the longer‑term risk of eroding public trust in the party’s commitment to accountability.
Action SA’s Contribution to the Evidence Base
Action SA played a pivotal procedural role by employing access‑to‑information laws to compel the police investigating directorate (Ipid) to release its report on Phala Phala. That document revealed “off‑book” investigations into the alleged theft of funds from the president’s farm, providing concrete evidence that could be scrutinized by an impeachment committee. Action SA spokesperson Michael Beaumont praised parties that persist in pursuing accountability, noting that the Ipid report will likely become a central piece of evidence in any forthcoming parliamentary inquiry.
Broader Significance for South African Democracy
The Constitutional Court’s ruling represents more than a procedural victory for the EFF; it reinforces the principle that constitutional mechanisms for oversight cannot be circumvented by technicalities. In the short term, the judgment may precipitate immediate political maneuvering—resignations, coalition reshuffles, or a formal impeachment inquiry. Over the longer term, it could foster a culture where parliamentary committees operate with greater independence, and where political parties are compelled to prioritize evidence‑based accountability over partisan loyalty. The episode thus marks a potential inflection point for South Africa’s constitutional democracy, testing the resilience of its institutions and the willingness of its leaders to submit to scrutiny.