By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Constitutional Court on Friday, 08 May 2026, ordered Parliament of South Africa to reconsider impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The ruling brings to a head a constitutional crisis that began on a winter night in February 2020, when thieves broke into Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo and stole a large sum of foreign currency, around $580,000, concealed in furniture at his private residence.
The President maintained that the money was a payment from a Sudanese businessman, Mustafa Mohamed Ibrahim Hazim, for the purchase of 20 buffalo.
The case was brought by the EFF and the ATM in November 2024, challenging Parliament’s decision to reject the report of the Section 89 Independent Panel.
The panel had found evidence that the President may have seriously violated provisions of the Constitution, as well as the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.
The president denied wrongdoing.
The president was also cleared in separate investigations by the SA Reserve Bank (SARB) and the Public Protector of South Africa.
Impeachment proceedings were blocked in a parliamentary vote, at a time when African National Congress (ANC) still had a majority, which it lost at the last election.
The EFF argued that the discretion Rule 129 gave Parliament was unconstitutional, as it allowed Parliament to override the findings of an independent panel and frustrate the constitutional purpose of the impeachment process. The court agreed, finding that the National Assembly’s 214-to-148 vote to reject the panel’s findings was irrational and inconsistent with the Constitution.
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya started by apologising for the delay, which had sparked criticism.
“I start by taking full responsibility for the delay in producing this judgment concerning an extremely difficult matter of national importance, and I tender my sincere apology to the parties, my colleagues and fellow South Africans for the inconvenience it has caused, ” she said.
The ruling which was made into three judgements came exactly 521 days after the matter was argued before the court, a delay that had itself become a national controversy.
The first judgment concluded that Rule 129I had the effect of blocking an impeachment inquiry without meaningful engagement on the merits of a motion when voting in parliament.
This undermined the “values of accountability and transparency”, according to Maya.
It was found that Rule 129I was “inconsistent with the constitution” and, therefore, “invalid”. As a result, Maya ruled that the National Assembly must correct the rule.
The first judgment finds that the EFF has been successful.
The second judgment, however, took a different view.
Judge Jody Kollapen found that even if Rule 129I was unconstitutional, this did not mean that the National Assembly’s vote was invalid.
The last judgment, penned by three judges, found that once the rule is set aside, “the vote taken cannot stand”.
“The third judgment concludes that Rule 129I is unconstitutional and must be set aside.”
“It further holds that the National Assembly’s vote must likewise be set aside because it was taken under an invalid rule that prevented the National Assembly from properly determining whether a ground for impeachment existed.”
“The vote, therefore, lacked a lawful foundation,” Maya said.
The report will now have to be referred to an impeachment committee.
The rand retraced some of its earlier gains after the ruling to trade 0.2% stronger at R16.44 per dollar by 10:44 a.m. in Johannesburg.
Reactions
The African National Congress (ANC) Spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu said the party respected the judgment.
She said the party would reflect on it and that it would form part of its upcoming NEC meeting. Asked to comment on calls by EFF leader Julius Malema for Ramaphosa to resign or step aside, she said: “That is just political speech.”
Democratic Alliance (DA) leader Geordin Hill-Lewis said the ruling “draws a clear line between the DA and ANC”.
“For too long, the ANC has presided over a political culture in which accountability is delayed, diluted or avoided when it becomes inconvenient. The DA stands for a different kind of politics in which the Constitution comes before party loyalty, and no leader is shielded from answering to the people.”
“This is a serious moment for Parliament, for the Presidency, and for South Africa’s constitutional democracy.”
“The impeachment committee must now do its work properly, rationally, fairly and constitutionally. The president must have the opportunity to account fully,” he said in a post on X.
The president was scheduled to be in Soweto on Friday morning for the launch of the National Cervical Cancer Elimination Programme, but the event has since been postponed.
Speaking to the media at the Union Buildings last month, Ramaphosa said he would respect whatever decision the ConCourt came to.
“It will be the Constitutional Court’s decision that will be announced, and I have no view. Whatever the court decides is what the court decides. The respect of our judiciary system, the response of our judiciary is sacrosanct and must be regarded as such, Ramaphosa said.”
The ruling comes as South Africa’s Constitution was adopted exactly 30 years ago today.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. No other law or government action can supersede the provisions of the Constitution. South Africa’s Constitution is one of the most progressive in the world and enjoys high acclaim internationally.
Ramaphosa played a central role in the creation of the Constitution. He is widely recognized for his work as the chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly, which was responsible for drafting the new Constitution from 1994 to 1996.