As the Constitutional Court delivers its judgment on the Phala Phala matter today, political parties are preparing for a ruling that could determine whether parliament must revisit its decision to block an impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The case before the apex court concerns an application by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM) after parliament rejected a Section 89 panel report that found a prima facie case requiring further investigation into allegations linked to the Phala Phala farm.
The matter has drawn comparisons with the Nkandla judgment involving former president Jacob Zuma, in which the Constitutional Court clarified parliament’s duties in holding the executive accountable.
Legal expert Elton Hart said parliament followed proper procedure but the issue now was rationality.
“I look at it from my perspective that parliament sort of complied with its constitution or it aligned itself with constitutional principles. It means that parliament, when they did everything, they worked according to the script.”
He said the panel’s findings should have triggered further inquiry.
“The panel made a finding which is prima facie evidence that suggests a further inquiry should happen. That is where parliament stepped in and voted against this,” he said. Hart said courts were reluctant to interfere in parliamentary processes.
“Courts don’t like to interfere because of the principle of separation of powers and because parliament did not violate the Constitution. Unless the court comes up and says: ‘What you guys did was unconstitutional or irrational.”
The central question, he said, was whether parliament met its constitutional duty.
“Was the decision rational? You need to now check whether this is consistent with their constitutional duty that they owe to South Africans and not to the president.”
He said that blocking further inquiry raised concerns.
“Why would we block a further investigation that could exonerate the president from any wrongdoing? … For me, that was not rational. It’s not in the interest of justice,” he said.
Governance scholar Richard Calland said the case tested oversight in a dominant-party system. “The question is whether oversight can function independently where the governing party controls voting outcomes,” he said.
Legal practitioner Michael Osborne SC said Section 89 panels assessed whether there was enough evidence for further inquiry but did not decide on guilt or innocence.
The EFF and ATM argue that parliament had no discretion once prima facie evidence was found and that it was required to establish an impeachment inquiry.
EFF leader Julius Malema framed the issue as one of accountability. “This is about whether parliament can ignore a panel that already found a case to answer,” the party argued in submissions.
The party says the decision weakens oversight and protects the executive. If successful, the court could order parliament to reopen the process. If the court rules for parliament, the decision stands and the impeachment process ends.
ATM parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula said the court should rely on its Nkandla precedent, which set out parliament’s duty to hold the executive accountable and follow structured impeachment procedures.
“The same ruling in 2017 said parliament must develop rules to fulfil Section 89 of the Constitution in terms of what must be followed to fulfil Section 89. The ruling said parliament must develop rules within 90 days. Indeed parliament developed those rules within 90 days.”
Zungula said parliament had failed to follow the required steps. “The second step was that parliament needed to establish an impeachment committee and that is where parliament failed,” he said.
He said the court must decide whether its earlier precedent applied. “The true test now is whether the Constitutional Court in 2026 still has confidence in the 2017 judgment that gave guidance on what process must be followed.”
Zungula said the case was about constitutional principle, not political advantage.
“This should not be viewed as a judgment that favours us but rather as a judgment that favours the Constitution and the precedent set by the same Constitutional Court. In 2017, in the Nkandla matter and the public protector’s report, principles and precedent were already established and we are not asking for anything new.
“If the court now takes a posture that it does not want to get involved in the business of parliament, it raises questions about why it got involved in the operational affairs of Parliament in 2017.”
He said a ruling in their favour would restart impeachment proceedings.
“This will send a strong message that even a sitting head of state can be held accountable.”
If they lose, he said, they would pursue accountability through other bodies, including the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid), which is probing alleged misconduct linked to Phala Phala.
The Ipid report recommended disciplinary action against members of the Presidential Protection Service over procedural failures in the handling of the theft investigation.
It found failures, including not opening a docket, improper involvement of security personnel and irregular investigative processes. However, it did not find wrongdoing on Ramaphosa’s part.
Zungula said the findings raised questions.
“It is not going to be the end of the matter because it will be scrutinised further through the Ipid report. We want to emphasise this point: If you lose R10 million and ask someone to investigate the matter, surely it must be tested how involved you were in overseeing or monitoring the work being done by the person you tasked with investigating the matter?”
The uMkhonto weSizwe Party said Ramaphosa should resign if wrongdoing was proved.
“This is something that he himself accepted and confirmed — that millions of dollars stashed in a couch were proceeds from a business deal. Why was the money not transferred? Why did they have to stash it in the couch? Where is the Sars receipt showing that the money was declared upon entering the country?
“When you are a president, you cannot conduct business dealings while in office. Mr Ramaphosa … confirmed that the illicit dollars were linked to a business deal involving the sale of an animal.”
Ndhela also criticised Ramaphosa’s comments on the judiciary.
“Ramaphosa … is on record saying that the Phala Phala matter was in the hands of judges he had appointed. It was a shameless and disgraceful statement.”
A senior ANC source said parliament must retain its authority. “The prescription of the rules is that they can only say the matter must be referred back but they cannot say parliament must impeach the president. That will never happen.”
The source said Nkandla and Phala Phala were legally distinct. “With the Nkandla matter, the court said you cannot just deal with these things casually. It said there must be rules because the Constitution requires them. There are now rules governing the impeachment of a sitting president and the deciding power rests with parliament.”
Democratic Alliance spokesperson Karabo Khakhau said the party would wait for the court’s judgment before deciding on its next steps.
Political analysts Steven Friedman and Ralph Mathekga said the case tested whether accountability could function where political majorities dominated oversight.
“Democracy relies on institutions being able to exercise oversight without political pressure overriding constitutional responsibility,” Friedman said.
Mathekga said: “When party loyalty outweighs institutional duty, accountability systems become constrained.”
The case in the apex court concerns an application by the EFF and the ATM after parliament rejected a Section 89 panel report that found a prima facie case requiring further investigation into allegations linked to Phala Phala
