ConCourt rules Phala Phala impeachment vote unconstitutional

In a landmark judgment delivered on Friday, the apex court found Rule 129(i)(b) of the National Assembly rules was inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. The court also set aside the National Assembly vote taken on December 13 2022 which rejected the recommendation that the report of the independent Phala Phala panel be referred to an impeachment committee.

Reading the order, the court said it had exclusive jurisdiction over the challenge to the constitutionality of Rule 129(i), but by majority decision found it did not have exclusive jurisdiction over the challenge to the National Assembly vote itself.

The court ruled the National Assembly’s impeachment process failed constitutional muster because MPs were permitted to terminate proceedings even after an independent panel had found sufficient evidence that the president may have committed serious violations warranting further investigation.

The judgment effectively removes parliament’s discretion to halt impeachment proceedings at that stage.

The court ordered that, pending amendments to the National Assembly rules, Rule 129(i) must now be read to require that where an independent panel concludes sufficient evidence exists, the matter “must be referred” to an impeachment committee for a full inquiry.

It further clarified that where a panel finds insufficient evidence, the National Assembly may still resolve to proceed with an inquiry, in which case the matter must also be referred to an impeachment committee.

As part of the order, the Constitutional Court referred the report of the independent panel directly to parliament’s impeachment committee established under the National Assembly rules.

The court also ordered the first to fourth respondents to pay the costs of the first applicant, including the costs of two counsel where applicable.

The ruling is a major constitutional and political development in the long-running Phala Phala saga, reviving impeachment proceedings that had effectively been halted after the National Assembly vote in December 2022.

The matter originates from the February 2020 theft of a substantial amount of foreign currency from President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo, a scandal that has overshadowed South African politics for more than four years and prompted serious questions about executive accountability, parliamentary oversight, and the rule of law.

The affair became public in June 2022 when former State Security Agency director-general Arthur Fraser filed criminal charges against Ramaphosa, alleging about $580,000 stolen from the farm had been hidden from authorities and state resources were misused to investigate the theft. Ramaphosa denied any wrongdoing, maintaining the funds derived from a legitimate buffalo sale to Sudanese businessman Hazim Mustafa.

Facing mounting political pressure, parliament convened an independent Section 89 panel under former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo to assess whether prima facie grounds existed for finding Ramaphosa had breached the constitution or engaged in serious misconduct sufficient to trigger impeachment proceedings. In November 2022, the panel found the president had a case to answer and may have committed serious violations.

The ANC-controlled National Assembly nonetheless voted against adopting the panel’s report, effectively shutting down any impeachment inquiry. That decision drew legal challenges from the EFF and the African Transformation Movement, both of which petitioned the Constitutional Court on the grounds that parliament had abdicated its constitutional duty to hold the president to account.

The Constitutional Court heard arguments in late 2024 but took more than a year to deliver a ruling, a delay that drew sharp criticism from opposition parties and legal observers.

TimesLIVE