OPINION| Ramaphosa survives the moment. What now? 

By Ismail Joosub 

President Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision not to resign this week was always going to provoke fierce reaction. For some, it is evidence of political survivalism. For others, it is a necessary act of constitutional steadiness at a moment when South Africa can least afford institutional rupture. 

But the more careful view is that the President’s decision to remain in office neither ends the Phala Phala matter nor places him above accountability. 

What it does do is prevent South Africa from tumbling overnight into a potentially destabilising leadership vacuum while constitutional processes continue to unfold.

Much of the public discourse over the last several days has treated resignation as though it were legally inevitable following the Constitutional Court’s judgment. It was not. 

The Court did not find Ramaphosa guilty of misconduct, nor did it order his removal from office. 

Instead, it found that theNational Assembly acted unlawfully