Phala Phala: Judgment Reserved in Ramaphosa Impeachment Bid after the Western Cape High Court heard final arguments in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s application to review and set aside the Section 89 Independent Panel report.

The three-day hearing ended with the full bench reserving judgment in a case that could determine whether Parliament’s impeachment process against Ramaphosa proceeds. The matter has attracted significant political and legal attention because the Section 89 report concluded that the president had a case to answer over allegations arising from the theft of foreign currency at his Phala Phala game farm.

The hearing was heard by Judge President Nolwazi Mabindla-Boqwana, Judge Mark Sher and Judge Ncumisa Mayosi. SABC News reported that judgment was reserved after the parties completed their arguments on Friday.

Phala Phala scandal and the Section 89 report

The Phala Phala scandal centres on the February 2020 burglary at Ramaphosa’s game farm in Limpopo, where approximately US$580,000 in foreign currency was stolen.

The controversy intensified in 2022 after former State Security Agency director-general Arthur Fraser laid a criminal complaint alleging that millions of dollars had been stolen from the property and that the president had attempted to conceal the crime.

Ramaphosa has consistently denied wrongdoing. He has maintained that the money was proceeds from the sale of game.

Following political pressure, Parliament established an independent panel under Section 89 of the Constitution to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for the president to face impeachment proceedings.

The panel was chaired by retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo and included retired judge Thokozile Masipa and advocate Mahlape Sello.

In November 2022, the panel concluded that Ramaphosa had a case to answer on four proposed impeachment charges.

The report did not find Ramaphosa guilty. Instead, it determined that there was sufficient evidence to warrant further consideration through Parliament’s impeachment process.

The report subsequently became the centre of a lengthy legal and political battle.

Cyril Ramaphosa impeachment bid faces court test

The Cyril Ramaphosa impeachment bid has been complicated by several court applications and decisions.

The National Assembly initially voted against acting on the Section 89 report in December 2022. That decision was later challenged, ultimately resulting in intervention by the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court ordered that the report be referred to Parliament’s impeachment committee, reopening a process that had remained dormant for more than three years.

Ramaphosa subsequently approached the Western Cape High Court seeking to have the report reviewed and set aside.

His legal team argues that the panel made errors when assessing the evidence and applying the legal threshold for determining whether there was sufficient evidence against the president.

The president’s lawyers have also argued that the panel failed to properly assess his explanation and did not adequately weigh evidence that could have cleared him of wrongdoing.

The respondents, however, have strongly opposed the application.

Advocate Dali Mpofu SC, representing the MK Party, argued that Ramaphosa’s review application amounted to a delaying tactic that could prevent the impeachment process from reaching its intended stage.

SABC News reported that Mpofu argued the High Court should not undermine the Constitutional Court’s order requiring Parliament to establish an impeachment committee.

Western Cape High Court hears competing arguments

The Western Cape High Court heard sharply contrasting arguments from Ramaphosa’s legal representatives and those opposing his review.

Mpofu argued that there was no basis for the president to prevent the impeachment process from proceeding.

He maintained that the Section 89 panel had not found Ramaphosa guilty of any offence. Rather, it had determined that there was a case requiring further examination.

According to Mpofu, the appropriate forum for testing the evidence was Parliament’s impeachment committee.

He also questioned whether the Western Cape High Court had jurisdiction to review the report, arguing that the Constitutional Court’s previous order had already directed Parliament to proceed with the impeachment process.

The judges questioned Mpofu about the limitations acknowledged by the Section 89 panel itself.

Judge President Mabindla-Boqwana raised concerns about the panel’s statement that it had not received all available information and that some people with first-hand knowledge had not come forward.

Mpofu responded that the limitations were created by Parliament’s own framework and the restricted time available to the panel.

Judge Mark Sher also questioned whether the Constitutional Court’s order effectively meant that Parliament’s impeachment committee had to proceed if the panel had found sufficient evidence.

These exchanges highlighted the central legal question facing the court: whether the Section 89 report can be reviewed and potentially overturned before the parliamentary impeachment process proceeds.

Ramaphosa review application challenges evidence threshold

The Ramaphosa review application focuses heavily on the standard of evidence used by the Section 89 panel.

Advocate Wim Trengove SC, representing Ramaphosa, argued that the panel applied the wrong legal test when deciding whether there was sufficient evidence for the president to face impeachment proceedings.

According to Trengove, the panel effectively relied on a prima facie standard rather than properly weighing evidence supporting and contradicting the allegations.

He argued that the panel should have considered Ramaphosa’s explanation alongside the allegations before reaching its conclusion.

The president’s legal team also criticised the reliance placed on information contained in Arthur Fraser’s criminal complaint.

Trengove argued that Fraser was not a direct witness to the events and that his allegations should therefore have been treated with limited weight.

The argument is significant because Fraser’s complaint played an important role in triggering the parliamentary impeachment process.

Ramaphosa’s lawyers further argued that the president’s right to respond to the allegations had not been adequately protected.

They said the panel should have confined itself to the four charges before it instead of considering broader allegations surrounding the Phala Phala controversy.

Previous investigations cited by Ramaphosa’s lawyers

Ramaphosa’s legal team also pointed to investigations conducted by various state institutions.

Trengove argued that the Phala Phala matter had already been examined by bodies including the South African Revenue Service, the South African Reserve Bank, the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and the National Prosecuting Authority.

He told the court that these investigations had not established wrongdoing by the president.

The argument forms part of Ramaphosa’s broader case that the Section 89 panel failed to properly consider exculpatory information.

The president has repeatedly rejected allegations that he was involved in criminal conduct and has said the foreign currency found at the farm came from legitimate game sales.

The court is therefore being asked to determine whether the Section 89 panel followed the correct legal and constitutional process when it concluded that Ramaphosa had a case to answer.

What happens after judgment?

The outcome of the case could have major consequences for the future of the Cyril Ramaphosa impeachment bid.

If the court sets aside the Section 89 report, the legal foundation for the current impeachment process could be significantly weakened.

If the court dismisses Ramaphosa’s review application, the parliamentary process could continue, subject to any further legal challenges.

The impeachment committee has been unable to proceed with public hearings while the legal dispute remains unresolved.

SABC News reported that Judge President Mabindla-Boqwana has undertaken to fast-track the judgment because of the significance of the matter.

The decision will therefore be closely watched by political parties, Parliament and the public.

It is important to stress that an impeachment process does not automatically mean that a president is guilty of misconduct or a crime. The parliamentary process is intended to provide a constitutional mechanism through which allegations against a sitting president can be examined and tested.

The Section 89 panel itself did not determine Ramaphosa’s guilt.

Instead, its finding was that there was sufficient evidence to warrant further proceedings.

YOU MAY LIKE:

Ramaphosa cites schoolboy case in Phala Phala report appeal

ActionSA challenges SAPS over ‘flawed’ clearing of Phala Phala officers

Phala Phala case remains politically significant

The Phala Phala scandal remains one of the most politically significant controversies of Ramaphosa’s presidency.

At the heart of the dispute are questions about the foreign currency stolen from his farm, how the burglary was handled, the role of the Presidential Protection Unit and whether Ramaphosa acted appropriately after the theft.

The president has consistently denied wrongdoing and has maintained that the money was linked to the sale of game.

For opponents of Ramaphosa, the parliamentary impeachment process represents an opportunity to obtain answers and test the allegations in a public constitutional forum.

For the president’s legal team, however, the central issue is whether the Section 89 panel reached its conclusion using the correct legal standard and fairly assessed the available evidence.

With judgment now reserved, the next major development will be the Western Cape High Court’s decision on whether Ramaphosa’s review succeeds.

Whatever the outcome, the ruling is likely to determine the next stage of one of South Africa’s longest-running political and legal battles.

Rereferences from mainstream media

1. SABC News — Judgment reserved in Ramaphosa’s Section 89 challenge court case — reports on the Western Cape High Court reserving judgment and the arguments over whether the Section 89 report can be reviewed. Read SABC News
2. IOL — Phala Phala: Judgment reserved in Ramaphosa’s bid to overturn impeachment report — covers the final arguments, the Section 89 panel findings and the implications for the impeachment process. Read IOL
3. SABC News — Section 89 Panel failed to meet evidence threshold: Adv. Trengove — reports on Ramaphosa’s legal team’s argument that the panel applied the wrong evidentiary standard. Read SABC News
4. TimesLIVE — Ramaphosa attacks impeachment panel’s legal test as Zungula accuses him of abusing courts — examines the president’s challenge to the Section 89 panel report and the competing arguments surrounding the impeachment process. Read TimesLIVE

Support Independent Journalism with eKayNews! 📰✨

At eKayNews, we are dedicated to bringing you honest, independent, and reliable news. But we can’t do it alone—independent journalism relies on the strength and generosity of its community.

If you value our work, please consider supporting us today! You can help keep us going by choosing a subscription or simply buying us a one-off virtual coffee:

👉 Support us here: ekaynews.co.za/subscribe-form/

You can also support our mission by visiting our main site at www.ekaynews.co.za and following @eKayNews on all social media platforms.

Thank you so much for your incredible generosity and for being part of our journey! 🙏💙