The Constitutional Court will on Friday deliver judgment on an application by the EFF over parliament’s decision not to proceed with an impeachment inquiry against President Cyril Ramaphosa after an independent panel found he had a case to answer regarding a robbery at his Phala Phala game farm.
The EFF argues that the National Assembly’s decision to not adopt the panel’s report and refer it to an impeachment committee is irrational. Should the application succeed, parliament will have to take another vote on the report or set up an impeachment inquiry, which would make Ramaphosa the first South African president to face such a process.
The panel, chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, found Ramaphosa may have committed a serious violation of the law which requires any person who holds a position of authority to report the theft of R100,000 or more to the police.
About $580,000 cash is understood to have been stolen from the farm premises.
The president reported the matter to Gen Wally Rhoode, a member of the Presidential Protection Unit, but did not report it directly to the police, saying he did not want to cause panic.
In November 2024, the EFF’s case was heard in the constitutional court. The court will not rule on the scandal itself but will consider whether parliament had acted correctly in rejecting the report after it was voted down.
At the time of the vote, in 2022, the ANC still had an outright majority in the national assembly.
The EFF has asked the court to declare that a parliamentary rule that allows the National Assembly to vote against any possible impeachment proceedings in circumstances where a prima facie case has been made against a sitting president is inconsistent with the constitution.
Alternatively, the EFF is seeking an order from the court that the rules of parliament be amended to allow for a prima facie finding to be automatically referred to an impeachment committee so that a full investigation can take place against a president.
The constitution stipulates the National Assembly may remove a president from office only on the grounds of a serious violation of the constitution or the law; serious misconduct; or their inability to perform the functions of office.
Anyone who has been removed from the office of president may not receive any further benefits of that office.
Prof Koos Malan, University of Pretoria professor of public law, said the panel’s report was devastating blow to the president.
“It found that the president was prima facie guilty of serious violations of the constitution or the law and serious misconduct as envisaged in section 89 of the constitution,” he said.
Still, Malan said he believes the chances that the court will rule in favour of the EFF are slim because the law does not state that the National Assembly is bound by the report.
“It was, after all, not a binding judgment. The report was assistance, which parliament wasn’t bound to follow.”
While parliament is not sovereign, it does enjoy autonomy, which includes parliamentary control over the executive — and the president in this case, Malan said.
“To my mind what the EFF asks the court to do is tantamount to ordering the ANC what its internal decisions should amount to; that is, ordering members of the ANC caucus how they should be casting their vote,” he said.
Malan said the EFF could still possibly consider criminal charges against the president.
Legal expert Llewelyn Curlewis said if the court found in favour of parliament, his view would be that it had incorrectly interpreted the case before it.
“The fact of the matter is, why ask for a recommendation and then get their recommendation only not to follow it. Because the majority in parliament [at the time] was the ANC. They used their majority vote.”
Curlewis said the ANC’s majority at the time meant that in effect no recommendation would ever pass the scrutiny of the majority party.
“That is ridiculous; such an interpretation must be irrational and unlawful.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.