By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
President Cyril Ramaphosa reaffirmed his commitment to the Constitution, the independence of the Judiciary and the rule of law following a Constitutional Court judgment on the Phala Phala farm scandal.
Ramaphosa in 2022 easily survived a vote in National Assembly that could have initiated proceedings to remove him from office over allegations that he concealed a theft of foreign currency at his farm in 2020.
The ConCourt ruled the decision of the National Assembly not to refer the report of the Independent Panel on whether Ramaphosa should be impeached or not, to a Parliamentary impeachment committee, to be invalid.
“It is declared that the vote of the National Assembly taken on 13 December 2022… is inconsistent with the Constitution, invalid, and it is set aside,” Chief Justice Mandisa Maya said in the ruling.
This landmark ruling underscores the critical importance of constitutional compliance in parliamentary procedures.
In a statement issued on Friday, the Presidency said it had noted the judgment in the case challenging the National Assembly’s decision regarding Section 89 proceedings against the President.
“The Presidency has noted the judgment of the Constitutional Court in the case brought by the Economic Freedom Fighters challenging the National Assembly’s decision with respect to Section 89 proceedings against the President,” the statement read.
According to The Presidency, Ramaphosa respects the ruling of the apex court.
It is unclear whether Ramaphosa will resign or not. He came close to resigning in 2022 following the section 89 report that found prima facie evidence suggesting that the president might have a case to answer.
The 2024 national elections fundamentally reshaped governance in the country, with many former opposition parties, such as the Democratic Alliance (DA), entering government under the Government of National Unity (GNU).
Notably, while the DA and once-majority African National Congress (ANC) have clashed several times over policy issues, the Phala Phala saga was not pursued further by the DA, which supported Ramaphosa as president of the GNU.
DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis said the party would approach the proceedings guided by constitutional obligations and evidence, stating that “no person, no matter how high their office, should be placed above accountability”.
The ANC also released a statement to similar effect, adding on X that the judgement shows “the importance of allowing institutions to function independently” within South Africa’s constitutional democracy.
The EFF has written to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza, asking for a “clear indication, within the next 48 hours, of specific steps” she intends to take given the judgement.
Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said on Friday, it will carefully study and consider the court’s judgment and its implications for the procedures of the National Assembly.
Although the Con Court gave no timelines, Parliament is now required to establish an impeachment committee, under Rule 129I of the National Assembly rules, which governs how a president may be removed from office under Section 89 of the constitution.
It contains three specific grounds for “impeachment” (although the section does not use the word). The National Assembly may remove the president from office (with a supporting vote of at least two thirds of its members), only when the president:
- has committed a serious violation of the constitution or law
- has committed serious misconduct
- or suffers from an inability to perform the functions of office.
Once constituted, the committee will gather evidence, test the credibility of the claims and assess the seriousness of the allegations against Ramaphosa before making recommendations to the National Assembly.