Hill-Lewis can make his mark with Ramaphosa impeachment process

The Constitutional Court judgment clearing the path towards a parliamentary impeachment process against Cyril Ramaphosa may ultimately be less about the president himself and more about the DA’s leadership direction under Geordin Hill-Lewis.

For Hill-Lewis, the moment presents both an opportunity and a trap.

The DA has long positioned itself as the party of constitutionalism, accountability and institutional integrity. In the aftermath of the Constitutional Court ruling on the Phala Phala affair, there is little doubt surrounding the party’s public posture.

It must support the establishment of an impeachment inquiry and allow parliamentary processes to unfold without political interference. Internally, senior DA figures appear acutely aware that any perception of opportunism or political bargaining could inflict lasting reputational damage on the party ahead of national elections in 2029.

But the challenge for Hill-Lewis is that he finds himself at this moment in a position of internal weakness rather than consolidated authority.

The election of George Michalakis as parliamentary leader and the appointment of Leon Schreiber as the DA’s cabinet leader signalled something profound about the party’s current internal mood: continuity, not change, remains the dominant instinct in the caucus.

Rather than marking the beginning of a new political era under Hill-Lewis, the parliamentary vote suggested the party establishment remains deeply aligned with former leader John Steenhuisen and the preservation of the current government of national unity (GNU) arrangement at almost any cost.

That matters because the Phala Phala impeachment process is likely to become the single biggest stress test the GNU has faced since its formation.

The DA’s handling of Phala Phala will shape perceptions, not only of the party’s principles, but also of who truly exercises authority within its ranks.

In sections of the DA, there will inevitably be pressure to use the Constitutional Court outcome as leverage against the ANC inside the GNU — whether for policy concessions, cabinet influence or broader strategic negotiations. There are already fears internally that the DA could be tempted into transactional politics under the guise of constitutional accountability.

Yet doing so may prove catastrophic.

The DA’s political brand rests on the claim that it stands above expedient power politics. If the party is seen to weaponise an impeachment process for short-term political leverage, it risks collapsing the very moral distinction it has spent years trying to build between itself and its opponents.

And internally, the problem for Hill-Lewis is compounded by the fact that the caucus itself appears deeply risk-averse.

The parliamentary contest this week revealed a party fearful of destabilising the GNU and deeply anxious about any scenario that could open the door to an ANC-EFF-MK alignment. That fear appears to have strengthened the hand of continuity candidates and weakened those arguing for a more assertive or independent parliamentary posture.

In practical terms, Hill-Lewis now faces a difficult balancing act: asserting authority without rupturing the caucus, defending constitutional principles without appearing reckless towards the GNU, and navigating a parliamentary leadership structure that many in the party still view as politically aligned to Steenhuisen.

The irony is difficult to ignore. Steenhuisen himself frequently criticised Helen Zille for allegedly trying to lead the DA from the shadows after her tenure as leader had ended. Yet the current configuration inside the party risks creating the same perception — that meaningful centres of power remain tethered to a former leader rather than fully transferred to the new one.

That is why the Constitutional Court ruling changes the political terrain so dramatically for Hill-Lewis.

Before the judgment, he could afford to consolidate quietly and govern from the relative safety of Cape Town. Now, however, the political centre of gravity may shift rapidly back to parliament. The DA’s handling of Phala Phala will shape perceptions, not only of the party’s principles, but also of who truly exercises authority in its ranks.

If the impeachment process descends into factional bargaining or GNU brinkmanship, the DA risks appearing directionless and consumed by internal power preservation. If handled correctly, however, Hill-Lewis could use the moment to define a more independent political identity for both himself and the party.

The danger is that the parliamentary vote has already sent a signal that the appetite for such change may be limited.

And that raises the defining question now confronting the DA: is Hill-Lewis truly in charge, or is the party still governed by the instincts and networks of its previous leadership?

How the DA answers that question during the Phala Phala process may determine not only the future of the GNU, but also whether the party enters 2029 with renewed momentum or burdened by the political consequences of having mistaken short-term stability for long-term strategy.