South Africa’s Constitutional Court has declined to hear an application seeking to overturn an interim order that has halted public proceedings in Parliament’s impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala matter.
The court determined that it was not in the interests of justice to hear the matter at this stage, principally because the Western Cape High Court is due to determine Ramaphosa’s separate review application concerning the Section 89 Independent Panel report. The High Court is scheduled to hear that application from 2 to 4 September.
The Constitutional Court’s decision leaves the interim interdict issued by the Western Cape High Court on 24 July in place. That order prevents Parliament’s impeachment committee from proceeding with the substantive public inquiry while Ramaphosa’s challenge to the independent panel’s report remains before the High Court.
The dispute is part of a constitutional process that has placed South Africa’s parliamentary oversight mechanisms and judicial review powers under sustained scrutiny. Parliament’s current Section 89 Impeachment Committee was established after the Constitutional Court’s May 2026 judgment found that the National Assembly’s 2022 decision not to refer the independent panel report for further consideration could not stand. The court directed that the report be referred to an impeachment committee, subject to the outcome of any review proceedings concerning the report itself.
Following that judgment, Parliament established the committee, chaired by Makashule Gana, and began work on its terms of reference, evidence procedures and the appointment of an evidence leader. Parliament’s official records show that the committee has been developing its procedures while also considering questions concerning the President’s potential appearance before it and the evidence contained in the independent panel’s report.
The July High Court proceedings altered the pace of that process. Ramaphosa approached the Western Cape High Court seeking a review of the findings of the Section 89 Independent Panel, which was chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo. The panel had concluded in 2022 that information before it established prima facie grounds that the President may have committed serious misconduct and may have violated constitutional obligations. Those findings were preliminary and were not themselves a determination that Ramaphosa had committed misconduct.
The Phala Phala matter originated in the reported theft in 2020 of a substantial amount of foreign currency from the President’s private game farm in Limpopo. The incident became public in 2022 and generated questions concerning the origin of the money, its handling and whether the President had complied with applicable legal and constitutional obligations. Ramaphosa has denied wrongdoing and has maintained that the money was connected to a legitimate transaction involving the sale of livestock.
The independent panel’s findings did not constitute a criminal conviction or a judicial finding of guilt. They were instead part of a parliamentary mechanism designed to establish whether sufficient grounds existed for an impeachment inquiry. Under Section 89 of South Africa’s Constitution, the National Assembly may remove a President only on specified grounds, including a serious violation of the Constitution or law, serious misconduct or an inability to perform the functions of office.
The Constitutional Court’s May judgment was therefore significant beyond the immediate political contest surrounding Ramaphosa. It concerned the constitutional relationship between Parliament’s responsibility to exercise oversight and the courts’ responsibility to ensure that constitutional procedures are followed. The court’s decision returned the Section 89 process to Parliament rather than determining whether Ramaphosa should be removed from office.
The latest Constitutional Court decision does not determine the merits of Ramaphosa’s review application, nor does it amount to a final ruling on the allegations arising from Phala Phala. Instead, the court has effectively allowed the Western Cape High Court process to take its course before it considers whether any further intervention is warranted. The court’s reasoning was that the forthcoming High Court determination could render the interim interdict moot.
Makashule Gana said following the Constitutional Court order that the impeachment committee would proceed in accordance with the Western Cape High Court judgment. Parliament’s work on the matter therefore remains subject to the limits imposed by the interim order while the review proceedings are pending.
For South Africa, the significance of the dispute extends beyond the political fortunes of an individual President. The proceedings have become a test of how the country’s constitutional institutions manage accountability when parliamentary oversight, executive authority and judicial review intersect.
The case also illustrates the layered nature of South Africa’s constitutional system. Parliament retains a central role in holding the executive to account, while the courts retain authority to determine whether constitutional and legal procedures have been followed. Neither the May Constitutional Court judgment nor the latest refusal to hear the appeal has determined the ultimate merits of the allegations against Ramaphosa.
The next major legal development is expected in September, when the Western Cape High Court considers Ramaphosa’s review application. Its decision could determine whether the independent panel’s report remains the basis for the parliamentary inquiry and, consequently, whether the impeachment process can proceed beyond its present procedural stage.
Until then, the Phala Phala matter remains unresolved, with the constitutional question of how Parliament should scrutinise the conduct of a sitting President continuing alongside the President’s challenge to the report that initiated the process.
