By Johnathan Paoli
The Constitutional Court has ruled that the National Assembly’s 2022 decision to block the impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala scandal was unconstitutional and ordered that the independent Section 89 panel report be referred to Parliament’s impeachment committee.
In a landmark majority judgment handed down on Friday, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya declared that National Assembly Rule 129i, the rule governing how Parliament handles Section 89 impeachment panel reports, was inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
“As such, the following order is made. It is declared that Rule 129i of the ninth edition of the rules of the National Assembly is inconsistent with the Constitution, invalid and it is set aside,” Maya said.
ALSO READ: EFF’s Dlamini says Phala Phala case looking very bad for Ramaphosa
The court further ruled that the NA vote taken to not implement the report, was itself unconstitutional.
“It is declared that the vote of the National Assembly taken on 13 December 2022 declining to refer the report of the independent panel to an impeachment committee is inconsistent with the Constitution, invalid and is set aside,” Maya ruled.
The judgment means the Section 89 panel report (which found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa “may have committed” serious constitutional violations and misconduct) must now proceed to Parliament’s impeachment committee for further investigation.
The case was brought by the Economic Freedom Fighters and the African Transformation Movement, which challenged both Parliament’s vote and the constitutionality of Rule 129i after the ANC-majority National Assembly rejected the panel’s recommendation in 2022.
Maya apologised at the start of proceedings for the lengthy delay in delivering the judgment, noting that arguments had been heard in November 2024.
“The substantial delay, which was not explained, is unreasonable. However, several factors favour overlooking the delay, including the fact that there is no prejudice to any of the respondents and the tremendous importance of the matter,” she said.
The majority judgment found that Parliament had failed in its constitutional duty to create an effective accountability mechanism for removing a president under Section 89 of the Constitution.
“Rule 129I permits the National Assembly to terminate the impeachment process at a preliminary stage before a full enquiry can be conducted. This has the effect of foreclosing full engagement with the merits of the motion, stifling informed debate and undermining the values of accountability and transparency that must inform the National Assembly’s processes,” Maya said.
ALSO READ: Prinsloo says Hawks ignored warning signs before Port Shepstone cocaine heist
The court ruled that Parliament could not simply vote down a panel report without allowing a full impeachment inquiry process to unfold.
“The National Assembly is required to do more than merely table, debate and vote on such a substantiated motion,” Maya said.
The court introduced an interim “reading-in” remedy to govern impeachment proceedings until Parliament amends its rules.
Under the revised formulation ordered by the court, whenever an independent Section 89 panel finds sufficient evidence that a president may have committed misconduct, the matter must automatically be referred to the impeachment committee.
The apex court was divided on parts of the case, producing three separate judgments.
However, a majority agreed that Rule 129I was unconstitutional and that Parliament’s 2022 vote could not stand.
Maya’s judgment held that the con court had exclusive jurisdiction over the challenge to the parliamentary rule because it implicated Parliament’s constitutional obligation to hold the president accountable.
The case stems from allegations surrounding the 2020 burglary at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo, where large sums of foreign currency were allegedly stolen and later concealed from authorities.
An independent parliamentary panel chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo concluded in 2022 that there was prima facie evidence Ramaphosa may have violated sections of the Constitution and the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act.
The panel found that Ramaphosa may have committed “a serious violation” of Section 96 of the Constitution, may have failed to report the theft under PRECCA, and may have exposed himself to conflicts between his official duties and private business interests.
ALSO READ: WHO predicts limited hantavirus outbreak following cruise ship deaths
Parliament subsequently voted against establishing an impeachment committee, effectively halting the process, a decision now overturned by the apex court.
Speaking after the decision, EFF leader Julius Malema called on Ramaphosa to resign with immediate effect.
“This has dire consequences. It is putting the ANC to the test again. It is putting the GNU and the DA to the test. We chose the Constitution. History will record that the EFF twice came before this Constitutional Court to hold the President accountable,” Malema said.
