The Constitutional Court recently delivered a landmark ruling, finding Parliament's December 2022 vote to reject the Section 89 independent panel report on President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal to be unlawful and invalid. This decision, which followed a 14-month delay, came in favor of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM), which had challenged the parliamentary conduct. The court specifically directed that the Section 89 report must now be referred to an impeachment committee for proper parliamentary scrutiny, emphasizing that the National Assembly’s previous decision not to refer the report was irrational and inconsistent with the Constitution.

In the wake of this ruling, EFF leader Julius Malema called for President Ramaphosa’s immediate resignation, urging him to focus solely on the impending impeachment process. Malema asserted that a responsible president should step down to prepare to answer to the impeachment, stating, “Even if he resigns, he must still come for impeachment.” He argued that South Africa cannot afford a president clouded by an impeachment process, as it compromises effective governance. Malema also highlighted the severe implications of impeachment, noting that if removed, Ramaphosa would lose all presidential perks, including a lifetime salary and VIP protection, becoming an “ordinary man” and potentially facing criminal investigations.

The Section 89 independent panel, led by retired Justice Sandile Ngcobo, had previously found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have committed serious constitutional violations. These included possessing undisclosed foreign currency of doubtful origin; active involvement in a private business potentially breaching Section 96(2)(a) of the Constitution; failure to report the theft to the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation as required by the Prevention and Combating of Corruption Act; and abuse of office through a secret, unofficial investigation that sought assistance from the president of Namibia to apprehend a suspect.

Following the Constitutional Court’s judgment, the EFF formally wrote to the parliamentary chief whip, demanding the immediate implementation of the ruling. The party called for Parliament to urgently constitute an impeachment committee and set clear timelines for giving effect to the apex court’s directive. The EFF underscored that Parliament is constitutionally obliged to act without delay, reinforcing the principle that no public office bearer should be shielded from scrutiny by procedural maneuvers. The party explicitly stated, “The Constitutional Court has made it plain that Parliament may not use procedure to shield power from constitutional scrutiny.”

Malema, however, stated that the EFF would not lobby any party in Parliament to secure the two-thirds majority required for Ramaphosa’s impeachment. Instead, he urged members to follow their conscience, citing Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma as an example, who was the only ANC member to vote in favor of the impeachment process proceeding in 2022. Malema commended her vindication, suggesting that parliamentary decisions should prioritize the country’s interest over factional politics.

The ruling has prompted strong reactions across the political spectrum. The Democratic Alliance (DA) confirmed its participation in the impeachment process, with leader Geordin Hill-Lewis stating that the party would be guided by facts, evidence, and constitutional duty, emphasizing that “no person, no matter how high their office, should be placed above accountability.” ActionSA, the ATM, and the Good Party also welcomed the ruling, echoing sentiments that it was a victory for accountability, restored constitutional oversight, and strengthened the rule of law. They urged Parliament to establish the impeachment committee promptly and ensure a transparent and fair process without political interference. These parties collectively stressed that Parliament must implement the judgment and confirmed that the court had affirmed the parliamentary rule used to block the report was invalid.

While several state institutions, including the Public Protector of South Africa, the South African Reserve Bank, and the National Prosecuting Authority, have previously cleared Ramaphosa of wrongdoing in certain aspects of the matter, opposition parties maintain that significant questions remain unanswered regarding the circumstances of the Phala Phala incident. With the Constitutional Court’s directive now in place, Parliament is expected to proceed with establishing an impeachment committee and set out clear timelines for implementing the court’s directive, marking a crucial next chapter in this politically significant constitutional dispute and ensuring accountability for all holders of public office.