Keypoints:
- Public impeachment hearings temporarily paused
- Parliamentary preparations will continue
- Phala Phala report faces September review
SOUTH Africa’s Western Cape High Court has temporarily stopped public impeachment hearings against President Cyril Ramaphosa, granting him breathing space while judges prepare to hear his challenge to the report at the centre of the Phala Phala scandal.
The ruling does not clear Ramaphosa or terminate Parliament’s inquiry. It delays the public phase of a process revived by the Constitutional Court, leaving his credibility, the ANC’s coalition relationships and South Africa’s accountability institutions under renewed scrutiny.
Court grants limited pause
The full bench granted Ramaphosa interim relief in a split 2–1 decision on Friday. Parliament was temporarily barred from proceeding with the public impeachment process pending the outcome of his separate application to review and set aside the 2022 independent panel report.
Parliament later clarified that the order covers public hearings and oral testimony. The Section 89 committee may continue preparatory work, including finalising its terms of reference and recommending an evidence leader.
The committee’s public proceedings could resume after the review is determined, subject to any further legal action. The case is scheduled to be heard from September 2 to 4, 2026.
How Phala Phala returned
The controversy followed the theft of about $580,000 in foreign currency from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.
Ramaphosa says the money came from the sale of buffaloes to a foreign buyer and has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. Former intelligence chief Arthur Fraser alleged that the president concealed the burglary and claimed a much larger amount was involved. Ramaphosa disputes that account.
An independent panel led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo concluded in November 2022 that the information before it established, on its face, that Ramaphosa may have committed serious misconduct or violated the Constitution and the law.
The National Assembly, then controlled by an ANC majority, voted against referring the report for further examination.
Constitutional Court revives inquiry
In May 2026, the Constitutional Court found that the parliamentary rule used in the 2022 process was unconstitutional. It set aside the National Assembly vote and referred the panel report to an impeachment committee.
The judgment revived a process that Africa Briefing reported had returned to Parliament after years of legal and political dispute.
The High Court’s latest order does not overturn that judgment. Instead, it pauses the public inquiry while another court considers Ramaphosa’s argument that the Ngcobo panel used the wrong evidential approach and reached findings that should be set aside.
Separate criminal decision
The parliamentary process is distinct from the criminal investigation.
In October 2024, the National Prosecuting Authority declined to prosecute Ramaphosa or anyone else in the Phala Phala matter. It said the available evidence provided no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution.
That decision did not resolve whether the president should face parliamentary accountability for possible constitutional violations or serious misconduct.
Coalition politics raise stakes
The political environment has also changed since the ANC used its majority to block the report in 2022. The party lost its outright majority in the 2024 election and subsequently formed a government of national unity, including a coalition agreement with the Democratic Alliance.
Removing a president requires a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, making Ramaphosa’s removal difficult. However, public hearings could still damage his reform credentials and place additional strain on the coalition.
What happens next
The September review will determine whether the Ngcobo report remains the legal foundation for the inquiry. If it survives judicial scrutiny, public hearings could continue, subject to any further legal challenge. If the report is set aside, Parliament may have to reconsider how the process proceeds.
For Ramaphosa, the ruling provides time — but not vindication.
