Parliamentary impeachment committee chair Makashule Gana on Thursday described the establishment of the Section 89 inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s handling of the theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala farm as a victory for South Africa’s Constitution.

Addressing a joint sitting of the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) marking the 30th anniversary of the Constitution, Gana said the committee was the first of its kind in democratic South Africa.

The committee was established after the Constitutional Court found that the National Assembly had failed to follow the correct process in dealing with allegations linked to the theft of foreign currency at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm.

Ramaphosa challenged the findings of an independent panel in court, arguing that it had applied the wrong standard and failed to present sufficient evidence to justify impeachment proceedings.

The president also threatened legal action to halt the committee’s work pending a court ruling.

However, Gana, addressing the committee for the first time as chairperson earlier this week, said it would continue with its work.

“Our committee is the first of its kind in South Africa and its very formation is a victory for this Constitution and all of us who have dedicated our lives to upholding its principles,” Gana said.

Reflecting on the Constitution’s 30-year journey, Gana said South Africans had much to celebrate but acknowledged that significant challenges remained.

He said the Constitution had shaped the course of his life and laid the foundation for a South Africa based on equality, dignity and freedom.

“Still, we must be honest. We do not yet live in the safe, prosperous, equal and united South Africa that our Constitution envisaged,” he said.

“We do not yet have this South Africa because many in positions of authority have failed in their duty to demand accountability, transparency and ensure that government works for the people.”

The debate exposed differing views on the Constitution’s legacy.

ActionSA member Kgosietsile Letlape said that while the Constitution was widely regarded as one of the world’s best, it had failed to deliver for many South Africans because of shortcomings in leadership rather than flaws in the document itself.

Letlape argued that the Constitution’s preamble, which states that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, created ambiguity by not referring specifically to citizens.

He also criticised constitutional protections that require authorities to provide temporary accommodation to unlawful occupiers facing eviction.

“Any illegal foreigner that occupies land is a form of aggression and should be treated as an act of war,” Letlape said.

African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) leader Kenneth Meshoe adopted a more conciliatory tone, saying the Constitution guaranteed equality, dignity and security to all people, including foreign nationals.

Meshoe said it was unfortunate that the Constitution’s anniversary coincided with anti-migrant protests in which lives had been lost.

“The ACDP strongly condemns these illegal, hate-fuelled attacks. We call on peace-loving South Africans to love, respect and protect innocent foreign nationals who live among us,” he said.

INSIDE POLITICS

The post Gana says Section 89 inquiry showcases strength of Constitution appeared first on Inside Politic.

National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has rejected claims by African Transformation Movement (ATM) MP Vuyolwethu Zungula that she met with President Cyril Ramaphosa’s lawyers following the Constitutional Court ruling on the Phala Phala matter.

Zungula has alleged that Didiza met Ramaphosa’s legal representatives and should therefore recuse herself from matters relating to the Section 89 impeachment inquiry.

The impeachment committee formally commenced its work after electing Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana as its chairperson.

According to Zungula, the alleged meeting compromised Didiza’s impartiality and rendered her unfit to continue overseeing processes related to the inquiry.

In a statement, Didiza dismissed the allegations as baseless and founded on inaccurate reporting.

“These allegations are entirely false, without any factual basis, and appear to rely solely on tabloid reporting. The Speaker reiterates that she has never met with the legal representatives of the President, either as alleged by Mr Zungula or in any other context relating to this matter,” her office said.

The statement noted that Didiza is an elected ANC member of Parliament who also serves on the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) and National Working Committee (NWC), and is therefore required to attend meetings of those structures as part of her party responsibilities.

“Attendance at party meetings by Members of Parliament is lawful, normal and entirely consistent with South Africa’s constitutional democracy and multiparty political system,” the statement said.

“The allegations made by Mr Zungula are based on pure speculation and appear calculated to cast doubt on the integrity of the Speaker and the credibility of the Section 89 process currently underway.”

The Speaker’s office said that while Zungula continued to advance what it described as unfounded claims in the media, Didiza had complied with every directive flowing from the Constitutional Court judgment without delay.

It cited the establishment of the multiparty impeachment committee in accordance with the court order and parliamentary processes as evidence of that compliance.

Didiza also rejected claims that her participation in the National Assembly vote on the Independent Panel Report in December 2022 constituted grounds for her recusal from subsequent Section 89 proceedings.

“This proposition is without merit. The vote on the Independent Panel Report was a decision of the National Assembly. At the time, Ms Didiza participated in that vote in her capacity as an elected Member of Parliament, exercising the same constitutional rights and responsibilities afforded to every other Member of the House,” the statement said.

The Speaker’s office said she would not be deterred from carrying out her constitutional responsibilities as directed by the court and required by the Constitution.

INSIDE POLITICS

The post Speaker Didiza rejects Zungula’s recusal call over Phala Phala impeachment process appeared first on Inside Politic.

President Cyril Ramaphosa has filed papers in the Western Cape High Court seeking to review and set aside the independent panel report into the Phala Phala matter.

Ramaphosa is challenging the legal standard applied by the independent panel, arguing that it relied on an interpretation inconsistent with the law and failed to show there was sufficient evidence to justify impeachment proceedings.

The renewed focus on the Phala Phala saga follows a Constitutional Court ruling that Parliament must follow the correct process in finalising the matter relating to the theft of foreign currency from Ramaphosa’s private farm.

Following the ruling, Ramaphosa indicated he would pursue a judicial review, a move that could effectively halt the impeachment process if the court rules in his favour.

In papers filed in the Western Cape High Court, Ramaphosa challenged the panel’s conclusion that there was prima facie evidence against him relating to his handling of the 2020 robbery at the farm.

During Parliament’s earlier process, it emerged that Ramaphosa did not immediately report the matter to the police, but instead tasked his head of protection services and an adviser with privately investigating the robbery.

In his application, Ramaphosa argued that the panel incorrectly viewed itself as a “filter” to determine whether a motion established prima facie evidence that the president had a case to answer before an impeachment committee.

He said the panel concluded that the information before it “discloses prima facie” that he may have committed a serious violation or misconduct.

“The panel was mistaken. It is a threshold requirement for any charge against the president that it discloses a prima facie case in terms of Rule 129A. The panel does not simply repeat the same requirement. It must determine whether sufficient evidence exists to warrant an impeachment process,” Ramaphosa argued in the papers.

He further contended that the panel failed to properly assess whether sufficient evidence existed to show that he had in fact committed the alleged serious violation or misconduct.

“In other words, the question is whether there is sufficient evidence to show that the President actually committed the serious violation or misconduct.

“Instead of making that determination, the panel determined that the information before it disclosed prima facie that the President may have committed the alleged violation or misconduct,” he argued.

Ramaphosa maintained that this did not meet the requirement of Rule 129(1)(b), which requires sufficient evidence before impeachment proceedings can proceed.

Meanwhile, National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has released the names of 31 MPs nominated by political parties to serve on the impeachment committee.

Under Parliament’s process, the committee will investigate the allegations further and make recommendations to the National Assembly. Should it recommend removal, the House would debate and vote on the matter, with a two-thirds majority required to remove a sitting president.

Parliament said GOOD and the Pan Africanist Congress would not participate in the committee because each party has only one MP serving in the executive.

The ANC nominees are Doris Mpapane, Xola Nqola, Soviet Lekganyane, Faith Muthambi, Cameron Dugmore, Dikeledi Direko, Boyce Maneli, Mirateko Mahlaule and Lusizo Makhubela, with Joy Maimela serving as an alternate.

The DA nominated George Michalakis, Baxolile Nodada, Glynnis Breytenbach, Karabo Khakhau and Nazley Sharif.

The uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) nominated John Hlophe, Mmabatho Mokoena-Zondi and Khanyisile Litchfield-Tshabalala, while the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) nominated Julius Malema and Omphile Maotwe.

Other nominees include Nhlanhla Hadebe (IFP), Marlon Daniels (Patriotic Alliance), Wouter Wessels (FF Plus), Lerato Ngobeni (ActionSA), with Athol Trollip serving as an alternate.

The ACDP nominated Steve Swart, the UDM nominated Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, Rise Mzansi nominated Makashule Gana, Build One South Africa nominated Mmusi Maimane, the ATM nominated Vuyo Zungula, Al Jama-ah nominated Imran Ismail-Moosa, the National Coloured Congress nominated Fadiel Adams, and United Africans Transformation nominated Lehlohonolo Wonderboy Mahlatsi.

INSIDE POLITICS

The post Ramaphosa files court bid to review Phala Phala panel report appeared first on Inside Politic.

Parliament has received the names of MPs who will serve on the impeachment committee that will investigate the Phala Phala scandal involving President Cyril Ramaphosa, the National Assembly said on Monday.

The committee is being established after the Constitutional Court revived impeachment proceedings linked to the 2020 theft of foreign currency from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm, overturning Parliament’s earlier decision not to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.

The deadline for political parties to submit names was Friday, 22 May. Almost all parties met the deadline, except the ANC, which told Parliament it would submit its names over the weekend. The ANC has since submitted its nominees.

The Section 89 impeachment process stems from an independent panel report in 2022 that found preliminary evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated his oath of office.

The matter centres on questions over how $580,000 in cash stolen from his farm was acquired, whether it was declared, and why it was kept in a couch rather than deposited in a bank. Ramaphosa has denied wrongdoing and has said the money came from the sale of buffalo.

Under Parliament’s process, the impeachment committee must investigate the allegations in more detail and make a recommendation to the National Assembly. If it recommends removal, the House would have to debate and vote on the matter, with a two-thirds majority required to remove a president.

Parliament said GOOD and the PAC would not participate in the committee because each party has only one MP, who serve in the executive as ministers.

The committee will include nine ANC MPs: Doris Mpapane, Xola Nqola, Soviet Lekganyane, Faith Muthambi, Cameron Dugmore, Dikeledi Direko, Boyce Maneli, Mirateko Mahlaule and Lusizo Makhubela. Joy Maimela will serve as an alternate.

The DA nominated George Michalakis, Baxolile Nodada, Glynnis Breytenbach, Karabo Khakhau and Nazley Sharif.

The uMkhonto weSizwe Party nominated John Hlophe, Mmabatho Mokoena-Zondi and Khanyisile Litchfield-Tshabalala, while the EFF nominated Julius Malema and Omphile Maotwe.

The IFP nominated Nhlanhla Hadebe, the Patriotic Alliance nominated Marlon Daniels, the Freedom Front Plus nominated Wouter Wessels, and ActionSA nominated Lerato Ngobeni, with Athol Trollip as an alternate.

The ACDP nominated Steve Swart, the UDM nominated Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, Rise Mzansi nominated Makashule Gana, Build One South Africa nominated Mmusi Maimane, the ATM nominated Vuyo Zungula, Al-Jama-ah nominated Imran Ismail-Moosa, the National Coloured Congress nominated Fadiel Adams, and United Africans Transformation nominated LW Mahlatsi.

Parliament previously said Speaker Thoko Didiza had determined that the committee would comprise 31 members drawn from 16 parties represented in the National Assembly, balancing proportional representation with participation by smaller parties.

INSIDE POLITICS

The post Here are the MPs who will serve on Ramaphosa impeachment committee appeared first on Inside Politic.

As the United States rolls out its plans to host the 2026 G20, South Africa finds itself facing a double blow: exclusion from the high-profile global forum and renewed legal scrutiny over President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal.

Last week, Washington confirmed that G20 foreign ministers will meet in Atlanta on 30–31 October, with the leaders’ summit set for Trump National Doral in Miami on 14–15 December, aligned with the 250th anniversary of US independence. South Africa, which only recently held the G20 presidency, is notably absent from the list of invitees.

While the US has not publicly provided a detailed explanation, the decision has fuelled speculation in diplomatic and political circles that Pretoria is being sidelined over its increasingly independent foreign policy stance.

At the same time, the Constitutional Court has agreed to hear a fresh challenge related to the Phala Phala saga, brought by the EFF and ATM. The case questions Parliament’s handling of the scandal and could potentially reopen the door to impeachment proceedings against Ramaphosa.

When the Government of National Unity (GNU) was formed in 2024, ANC and DA leaders privately signalled that Phala Phala would not be used as a political football inside the coalition. The matter appeared to be fading from the centre of national debate. Its sudden return to the country’s highest court has therefore raised eyebrows — particularly given the timing.

South Africa’s relationship with the US has been under strain for several years. Pretoria’s decision to take Israel to the International Court of Justice over alleged genocide in Gaza drew sharp reactions in Western capitals, with Ramaphosa repeatedly comparing Palestinian suffering to South Africa’s own apartheid past.

In addition, the Ramaphosa administration has maintained and, in some cases, deepened ties with governments such as Venezuela, Cuba and Iran — all of which are locked in open confrontation with Washington. South Africa has also continued to position itself as a leading voice of the Global South, rather than aligning neatly with Western foreign policy priorities.

Against this backdrop, some analysts argue that South Africa’s G20 exclusion and the renewed focus on Phala Phala cannot simply be seen in isolation.

They point out that the country is a strategic player, holding the world’s largest confirmed reserves of platinum group metals and major reserves of chromite, manganese and vanadium, along with control of key deep-water ports such as Durban, Richards Bay and Cape Town. In an era of intensifying competition over critical minerals and logistics routes, Pretoria’s choices on foreign policy and trade carry weight far beyond the region.

For critics of US policy, the current sequence of events looks like a familiar pattern: a mix of diplomatic pressure from outside and legal-political pressure from within, aimed at a government that refuses to fully toe the line. Supporters of Ramaphosa within the ANC describe it as “lawfare” wrapped in the language of accountability.

Others caution against over-interpreting the developments, insisting that South Africa’s courts are acting within their mandate and that G20 invitations remain a prerogative of the host country.
What is clear is that the stakes are high. The Constitutional Court’s eventual ruling on Phala Phala could have far-reaching implications for Ramaphosa’s political future and the stability of the GNU, while South Africa’s absence from the G20 table risks weakening its ability to influence global economic and governance debates.

As questions mount over whether Pretoria is being punished for charting an independent course, South Africans are once again left to weigh up a difficult balance: defending sovereignty and policy autonomy on the one hand, while managing the real costs of friction with powerful global partners on the other.

Tinstwalo Baloyi is an independent contributor and commentator.

The post Phala Phala back in spotlight as SA frozen out of G20: coincidence or pressure tactic? appeared first on Inside Politic.

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 in December 2022 when it blocked the progression of the section 89 impeachment process. 

This was after an independent parliamentary panel already concluded that there was prima facie evidence suggesting that Ramaphosa may have committed serious misconduct and may have acted inconsistently with his office.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling was therefore procedural.

It reaffirmed that Parliament cannot simply suppress an impeachment process at the preliminary stage because the political consequences may be inconvenient. 

The Court ordered that the panel report be referred to an impeachment committee “unless and until” the report is set aside on review. 

Ramaphosa has chosen to take the panel report on judicial review. Legally, he is entitled to do so.

Judicial review is one of the Constitution’s core accountability mechanisms and there is nothing unconstitutional about a President challenging a report that he believes contains legal or factual flaws. 

But there is an important qualification that cannot be ignored: launching a review application does not automatically suspend Parliament’s impeachment process. The Constitutional Court did not say that the process stops once review papers are filed. It said the process continues unless and until the report is actually set aside.

That means the President will almost certainly have to approach the High Court for interim relief if he wishes to pause Parliament’s impeachment proceedings while the review is heard.

Constitutionally, this creates an unusual situation.

A lower court may effectively be asked to suspend the operation of a process revived by the Constitutional Court itself. Whether such an interdict is granted will likely determine the immediate political tempo of the crisis.

If the interdict fails, Parliament’s impeachment committee may proceed while the review simultaneously unfolds through the courts. If it succeeds, the matter could slow considerably, buying the President time but not a final escape from scrutiny.

And scrutiny will remain unavoidable.

The political difficulty for Ramaphosa is that Phala Phala has now moved beyond being merely an opposition slogan. The recent IPID findings regarding the conduct of police officials, together with the revived section 89 process, have reinforced public concern about the relationship between state power, private interest and accountability at the highest level of government.

At the same time, the legal picture remains more complex than many public narratives suggest. The Public Protector previously found no substantiated breach of the Executive Ethics Code. The National Prosecuting Authority declined to prosecute. The Reserve Bank found no completed exchange-control transaction on the evidence before it.

The issue now is, therefore, not whether every institution has condemned the President. It is whether Parliament may finally complete a constitutional accountability process that was prematurely halted.

This is precisely why Ramaphosa’s decision not to resign may ultimately be better for constitutional democracy than an abrupt departure.

South Africa’s Government of National Unity (GNU) remains politically young and structurally delicate. Had the President resigned this week, the country would not merely have faced a change of office-bearer. It would have triggered a succession battle inside the ANC, fresh coalition negotiations within the GNU, and significant uncertainty regarding the future direction of the state itself.

Constitutionally, Deputy President Paul Mashatile would temporarily act as President under section 90, but any permanent successor would still need to be elected by the National Assembly under section 86. In the current parliamentary arithmetic, that process would immediately become a coalition contest.

This is where economics enters the discussion.

South Africa’s recovery remains fragile. Growth forecasts remain modest,unemployment painfully high, and investor confidence heavily dependent on political predictability and reform continuity.

Markets can absorb accountability processes. What they struggle to absorb is prolonged uncertainty over executive authority and coalition stability. The greatest danger at present is therefore not constitutional scrutiny itself, but institutional destabilisation.

That reality will inevitably shape the road to the 4 November 2026 municipal elections.

Opposition parties will seek to turn Phala Phala into a referendum on the ANC’s moral credibility. Some within the ANC itself may quietly view the crisis as an opportunity to reposition internal power ahead of 2027 succession battles.

The electorate is also likely to judge whether the GNU can maintain stability, continue institutional reform and allow constitutional processes to function without collapsing into political chaos.

That, ultimately, is the real significance of this moment. President Ramaphosa has not survived because the Constitution shielded him from accountability. He has survived because the Constitution still insists on process.

South Africa now faces the difficult but necessary task of balancing constitutional scrutiny with constitutional stability. The challenge ahead is not to protect individuals. It is to protect the Republic from the twin dangers of impunity on the one hand and institutional collapse on the other.

Ismail Joosub is manager of the Constitutional Advancement Programme at the FW de Klerk Foundation. 

INSIDE POLITICS 

The post OPINION| Ramaphosa survives the moment. What now?  appeared first on Inside Politic.

The ANC has rallied behind President Cyril Ramaphosa ahead of a special national executive committee (NEC) meeting to discuss the implications of the Constitutional Court judgment in the Phala Phala matter.

ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula on Tuesday defended Ramaphosa’s refusal to resign following the ruling, saying there was currently no basis compelling the president to step down, despite mounting political pressure ahead of 2026 Local Government Elections on November 4.

His remarks come amid growing public outrage over the Phala Phala scandal and renewed calls from opposition parties for Ramaphosa to resign.

Speaking to reporters ahead of the NEC meeting in Cape Town, Mbalula said the ANC’s national officials — commonly referred to as the “Top Seven” — met earlier this week, where Ramaphosa briefed them on the matter in confidence.

The top seven comprises the ANC president, deputy president, secretary-general, two deputy secretaries-general, national chairperson and treasurer general.

Mbalula said he had since compiled a report following that meeting, which would be tabled before the NEC for discussion.

Ramaphosa has recused himself from the meeting.

Calls for Ramaphosa’s resignation intensified after the Constitutional Court ruled that Parliament’s decision not to establish a committee to consider the Section 89 independent panel’s findings was unconstitutional.

The panel found that Ramaphosa had a prima facie case to answer regarding allegations linked to foreign currency allegedly stolen from a couch at his Phala Phala farm near Bela-Bela, Limpopo, in 2020.

Mbalula described calls for Ramaphosa to resign as premature.

“From where we are standing, there is nothing around him that compels him to step down. The question is what his intentions are and what he is going to do in relation to the judgment and the options before him,” he said.

“As we stand here today, we know that the president will take the Section 89 report on review, based on the outcome of the judgment and on the advice of the legal personnel supporting him in this regard.”

Mbalula dismissed speculation of internal divisions within the ANC, but acknowledged that some in society had opportunistically echoed calls for Ramaphosa to resign.

“This is not new. You want the president to be impeached but at the same time you want the president to resign. So, what is it that you want in terms of accountability? There has been confusion in relation to the calls that have been made. Others moved faster for the call for him to resign even before the parliamentary process had kicked in,” he said.

He added that political parties which challenged the parliamentary process did not do so with the aim of forcing Ramaphosa to resign.

However, once the Constitutional Court ruled that Parliament’s process must be corrected, calls for his resignation intensified.

Yet, Mbalula argued, the substance of the process had not yet been tested by any committee.

“There are commentators who have distorted the judgment, and the ANC will not be oblivious to that,” he said.

“So, we can’t be delinquent when it comes to the law, the Constitution and the rule of law. In this instance, we will reflect on all of these matters and map the way forward in terms of what needs to be done,” he said.

“The question of the image of the ANC in relation to the judgment will be interrogated by this meeting. It must be informed by facts in terms of legal substance, but also by what you define as moral considerations.”

Mbalula said the judgment dealt only with process, adding that much had happened since the independent panel report was released and that none of it had been tested in court.

He said the party was not yet discussing the balance of forces should the matter reach an impeachment stage, but insisted Ramaphosa would not be removed through numbers alone in the National Assembly despite the ANC’s majority.

“The ANC equally will not be controlled or bullied in this process, but we will talk, as we do with everybody, whenever the need arises,” he said.

Photos: X/MbalulaFikile

INSIDE POLITICS

The post ANC rallies behind Ramaphosa ahead of NEC meeting on Phala Phala judgment fallout appeared first on Inside Politic.

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has accused President Cyril Ramaphosa of attempting to evade accountability through the courts after he confirmed that he would seek a judicial review of the Section 89 independent panel report into the Phala Phala scandal rather than resign.

In a statement after the President’s address on Monday night, EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said the president’s decision proved that he would go to any lengths to avoid facing the music.

“His decision affirms precisely what the EFF has consistently maintained that Cyril Ramaphosa will exhaust every political and legal mechanism available to evade accountability and avoid facing an impeachment inquiry before Parliament,” Thambo said.

The EFF described the review application as “fundamentally opportunistic” and accused Ramaphosa of acting out of “political convenience and self-preservation”.

The party argued that Ramaphosa had initially approached the courts in December 2022 after the independent panel found prima facie evidence that he may have violated the Constitution and his oath of office, but later abandoned the challenge once the ANC used its parliamentary majority to block the impeachment process.

“Once the ANC used its parliamentary majority to irrationally and unconstitutionally suppress the report and block the impeachment process, Ramaphosa quietly withdrew that review application because he believed the matter had been politically buried forever,” Thambo said.

“Now, nearly four years later, after the Constitutional Court declared the ANC-led parliamentary process unlawful and ordered that the report be properly referred for an impeachment inquiry, Ramaphosa suddenly seeks to revive legal challenges against the very same report he previously abandoned,” he added.

The party said it would oppose Ramaphosa’s review application in court and push for the matter to be heard urgently.

“The EFF will therefore join the review application in opposition to President Ramaphosa and will demand that the matter be treated with urgency on the court roll, precisely because it concerns a matter of profound national importance,” Thambo said.

The EFF also argued that Ramaphosa’s legal challenge should not interrupt Parliament’s impeachment process, saying it was their view that the Constitutional Court order directing Parliament to establish an impeachment committee remained binding.

The party called on National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza to oppose Ramaphosa’s review application because the independent panel had been established through Parliament under her authority.

The latest developments come after the Constitutional Court ruled on Friday that aspects of Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment rules were unconstitutional.

The case was brought by the EFF and the African Transformation Movement after the National Assembly voted in December 2022 against establishing an impeachment committee despite an independent panel finding that Ramaphosa may have serious questions to answer over the 2020 theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala farm in Limpopo.

The panel, chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, found there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have committed serious misconduct and violated the Constitution.

However, the ANC-majority Parliament voted against proceeding with an impeachment inquiry, effectively halting the process at the time.

The apex court subsequently overturned that decision and ordered that the panel report be referred to Parliament’s impeachment committee.

Ramaphosa insisted that the judgment did not require him to step down and maintained that the court had made no findings on his conduct.

The president argued that the report contained “grave errors of law and unfounded conclusions of fact” and said he remained committed to serving out his mandate as president.

But the EFF said no president should be allowed to indefinitely frustrate constitutional accountability through litigation.

“If Cyril Ramaphosa had any conscience, political integrity, or respect for the people of South Africa and the constitutional order he swore to uphold, he would resign and allow the country to move forward,” Thambo said.

INSIDE POLITICS

The post EFF vows to oppose Ramaphosa’s review application appeared first on Inside Politic.

By Marcus Moloko

President Cyril Ramaphosa answers crucial questions tonight from the Union Buildings following a landmark Constitutional Court ruling that has effectively revived the Phala Phala impeachment process.

On Friday, the Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), finding that the National Assembly acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally in December 2022 when it voted to reject the Section 89 Independent Panel report.

ALSO READ: WATCH: ANC ‘abused its majority’ in Phala Phala vote, says Mapisa-Nqakula

That panel, chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, had found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have committed serious violations of the Constitution and the law in relation to the theft of $580,000 in undeclared foreign currency from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo.

In tonight’s address, Ramaphosa is expected to respond to several critical issues:

The Constitutional Court has set aside the 2022 parliamentary vote and ordered that the Section 89 report be referred to an impeachment committee.

The President must clarify his willingness to participate in this formal probe.

The ruling struck down Rule 129I of the National Assembly’s rules, which had allowed the majority party to block investigations before they reached a committee.

Ramaphosa will likely address his commitment to constitutional oversight despite these findings against his party’s actions.

Opposition parties, including the EFF and MK Party, have called for his immediate resignation or a motion of no confidence.

South Africans watch closely for clarity on whether he intends to step down or fight the impeachment proceedings.

ALSO READ: EFF responds to Ramaphosa reported attempt to ‘hide behind court proceedings’

While the court did not rule on his guilt or innocence, it validated the panel’s view that there is a case to answer.

The President may use tonight’s address to explain the origin and handling of the foreign currency to allay public concern.

The Presidency has previously stated that Ramaphosa respects the judgment and maintains that “no person is above the law.”

Tonight’s address will be the first time he speaks directly to the nation since the ruling, and it is expected to set the tone for how his administration will navigate the revived impeachment process.

INSIDE POLITICS

The post WATCH LIVE: Ramaphosa addresses nation on Phala Phala judgment appeared first on Inside Politic.

National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has confirmed that Parliament will begin the process of establishing an impeachment committee to consider the Section 89 inquiry report into President Cyril Ramaphosa following last week’s landmark Constitutional Court ruling on the Phala Phala scandal.

In a statement on Monday, Didiza said the NA would fully comply with the apex court’s order, which declared Rule 129I of the assembly’s rules unconstitutional and invalid, and set aside Parliament’s 2022 decision not to refer the Section 89 panel report to an impeachment committee.

ALSO READ: Hawks colonel details how 136kg of cocaine vanished

“The Speaker will initiate the process to constitute the Impeachment Committee in terms of Rules 129J to 129O of the Rules of the National Assembly to consider the section 89 inquiry process contemplated in the Constitution and the Rules of the Assembly,” the statement read.

Didiza confirmed that the independent panel report into the Phala Phala matter would formally be referred to the impeachment committee, as directed by the con court.

Among the immediate steps outlined, the Speaker will formally table the independent panel report through Parliament’s official gazette and provide Ramaphosa with a copy of the report, as required by the ruling.

The Speaker will also refer the judgment to the Subcommittee on the Review of Rules to process amendments required by the ruling.

“The Subcommittee will report on its work to the Rules Committee, which will in turn submit its recommendations to the National Assembly for consideration,” the statement said.

Didiza added that the Speaker would determine the appropriate programme, procedural arrangements, timeframes and institutional support measures necessary to enable the impeachment committee to undertake and finalise its work effectively, fairly and within the framework of the Constitution and the rules of the NA.

The con court ruling also introduced interim wording for Rule 129I pending formal amendments to Parliament’s rules.

Under the revised interpretation, once an independent panel concludes that sufficient evidence exists for a Section 89 inquiry, the matter must automatically be referred to an impeachment committee.

If the panel finds insufficient evidence, the NA may still vote to proceed with an inquiry.

ALSO READ: WATCH: ANC ‘abused its majority’ in Phala Phala vote, says Mapisa-Nqakula

The ruling represents a major political and constitutional setback for Ramaphosa, whose handling of the Phala Phala matter has remained a source of controversy since former State Security Agency director-general Arthur Fraser laid criminal charges against him in 2022.

Parliament said the judgment reaffirmed the constitutional obligations of the NA in relation to accountability, oversight and the constitutional mechanisms established under section 89 of the Constitution.

“Parliament remains committed to discharging these constitutional responsibilities with due regard to constitutionalism, legality, fairness, institutional integrity and the rule of law,” the statement said.

Friday’s judgment effectively revived the impeachment process against Ramaphosa, nearly three-and-a-half years after the NA voted against advancing the inquiry.

ALSO READ: EFF responds to Ramaphosa reported attempt to ‘hide behind court proceedings’

The case stemmed from a challenge brought by the Economic Freedom Fighters and the African Transformation Movement after Parliament rejected the findings of an independent Section 89 panel chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo in December 2022.

That panel had found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have serious questions to answer regarding the theft of about $580 000 in cash allegedly stolen from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.

At the time, the ANC used its parliamentary majority to block the report from proceeding to an impeachment inquiry.

In Friday’s ruling, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya apologised for the lengthy delay in handing down judgment, more than 500 days after arguments were heard in November 2024.

Delivering the majority judgment, Maya said the court found that Rule 129I effectively prevented meaningful engagement by MPs on whether impeachment proceedings should continue.

She said the rule undermined constitutional principles of accountability and transparency and was therefore inconsistent with the Constitution.

The court consequently set aside both the rule and the NA’s December 2022 decision rejecting the panel report.

INSIDE POLITICS

The post Parliament to establish impeachment committee, says Speaker Didiza appeared first on Inside Politic.