President Cyril Ramaphosa to face an Impeachment Committee regarding the alleged cover-up following the 2020 burglary at his farm.
Image: Phando Jikelo
Friday’s ruling by the Constitutional Court has been widely viewed by legal experts as a strong affirmation of judicial independence and the strength of South Africa’s constitutional democracy. The court found that the National Assembly acted inconsistently with the Constitution when it voted against adopting the Section 89 panel report related to the Phala Phala matter.
The majority judgment means President Cyril Ramaphosa must now face an Impeachment Committee over allegations linked to the handling of the 2020 burglary at his farm. The ruling reinforced the principle that all institutions and individuals remain accountable under the law.
Legal expert Mpumelelo Zikalala described the judgment as a clear indication of the country’s democratic strength.
“It shows that no one is above the law. Every action and every decision taken, even by Parliament and by the president, will be under scrutiny of our legal principles, and the court will decide upon it,” Zikalala stated.
He said the ruling would also help shape how similar matters are handled in the future.
“We must also remember another thing that we are trying to do is fix what is required for future generations, so if a matter like this were ever to come, at least we will be able to handle it because we have done it thus far and we know exactly what needs to be done moving forward, especially when it comes to allegations against a president, allegations against anyone who is in Parliament,” he said.
Zikalala added that existing rules should be improved where necessary to better address future constitutional challenges.
Constitutional law expert and former acting judge Karthy Govender also praised the judiciary’s role, saying the courts have repeatedly demonstrated both independence and competence.
“I think the South African judiciary has established its independence and added competence on many occasions. And to my mind, I think it is probably the best functioning institution of the state in our constitutional democracy, and this ruling is an indication of the court grappling with what, having read some summaries of the judgment, is quite a difficult issue,” Govender said.
Govender noted that the case was highly complex, with the court delivering three separate judgments and four justices effectively dissenting. The majority ruled that the 2022 parliamentary vote, which halted the impeachment process before it formally began, was unconstitutional. As a result, the matter has now been referred back to Parliament.
He argued that the legal and procedural complexities contributed to delays in resolving the case.
Govender also criticised politicians who selectively support court rulings depending on political outcomes.
“I think the lesson we should as a society learn is that when the judiciary has spoken, it's binding and we accept it. I think it's a dangerous tendency for populist politicians, when judgments go against them, to try and undermine the independence and effectiveness of our judiciary and only celebrate when judgments that are in favour of their political inclinations go in their favour,” Govender cautioned.
He stressed that the judiciary is fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities by adjudicating matters brought before it and highlighted the importance of transparency in legal reasoning.
“The reasons that are provided really support the conclusions that have been reached. And so I think that it's important to emphasise that, because I think our constitutional democracy is dependent on respect for the judiciary, and too often, I find politicians, when it's convenient, undermining the integrity of the judiciary is not a benefit to anyone,” he concluded.
The case was brought before the court by the Economic Freedom Fighters and the African Transformation Movement. The court found both the National Assembly’s December 2022 vote and Rule 129(i), which enabled the process, to be invalid.
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya confirmed that the majority held the vote had been influenced by a “material error of the law” and therefore had to be overturned. The Section 89 panel report, which identified prima facie evidence of possible constitutional breaches, will now proceed to an Impeachment Committee.