Constitutional Court Clears Way for Ramaphosa Impeachment Inquiry over Phala Phala Cash Theft
Constitutional Court orders Parliament to hold a Ramaphosa impeachment inquiry after ruling 2022 vote invalid amid the Phala Phala cash-theft controversy.
Immediate impact of the court ruling
On Friday, the Constitutional Court in Johannesburg invalidated a law that had allowed Parliament to reject an independent panel’s recommendation that President Cyril Ramaphosa face an impeachment hearing. The decision revives a 2022 panel finding and compels Parliament to reconsider whether to open a full inquiry into the matter. The ruling directly references a controversial theft at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm and removes the parliamentary barrier that spared the president an earlier hearing.
Background of the Phala Phala theft allegations
The case centers on a theft at the Phala Phala farm in February 2020, when cash hidden in a couch was reportedly stolen. Mr. Ramaphosa has denied wrongdoing, saying the amount taken was $580,000 and that the money was payment from a Sudanese businessman for livestock. Political opponents, notably former spy chief Arthur Fraser, alleged larger sums were involved and claimed the theft had been concealed to avoid scrutiny.
Panel findings and alleged misconduct
The independent panel that examined the matter in November 2022 expressed skepticism about the president’s account and identified possible misconduct. The panel said Mr. Ramaphosa may have abused his powers by seeking assistance from Namibia’s president in the investigation and that he might have breached foreign currency regulations. It also raised concerns about potential conflicts between his private business activities and constitutional duties as head of state.
Parliamentary vote and the legal challenge
When the panel recommended an impeachment hearing in 2022, Parliament voted to reject that recommendation, with 214 members opposing continuation and 148 voting in favor. The Economic Freedom Fighters challenged Parliament’s decision in court, arguing the rejection was unlawful. The Constitutional Court’s ruling upheld that challenge, finding the statutory mechanism used to override the panel’s recommendation to be invalid.
Political arithmetic and the risk to the presidency
The ruling significantly alters Mr. Ramaphosa’s parliamentary prospects if an impeachment hearing proceeds. The African National Congress once held an outright majority with 230 of 400 seats, but in the 2024 national election the party won roughly 40 percent of the vote and lost its sole majority. Removing a president through impeachment requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament, a threshold Mr. Ramaphosa would now find more difficult to secure without broad cross-party support.
Likely next steps and procedural timeline
Parliament must now decide how to implement the court’s judgment and whether to reconvene processes toward a formal impeachment inquiry. If lawmakers vote to hold a hearing, procedural rules will govern evidence, testimony and the president’s right to respond. Should a hearing proceed and result in a recommendation for removal, a two-thirds parliamentary vote would be required to oust the president, underscoring the high bar for actual removal from office.
Reputational consequences and broader implications
The episode has already affected Mr. Ramaphosa’s standing as an anti-corruption advocate, a role he emphasized when becoming ANC leader in 2017 following the scandals of the Jacob Zuma era. The resurfacing of the Phala Phala controversy has provided political opponents with ammunition and raised questions about governance and transparency at the highest level. The case may also influence coalition dynamics and voter perceptions as parties navigate the fallout.
The Constitutional Court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in South African politics, returning a contentious matter to the parliamentary arena and setting the stage for potentially decisive proceedings concerning presidential accountability.