Phala Phala can’t be wished away

More than 14 months have passed since the constitutional court heard the Phala Phala review application on 26 November 2024. Judgment was reserved that day and, by February 2026, the apex court has delivered nothing. There has been no ruling, no reasons and no indication of when relief might come.

This is not a routine backlog. It is completely and utterly unprecedented in the court’s modern history for a matter of such national importance, involving presidential accountability, to languish this long without resolution. The Norms and Standards for Judicial Officers are clear: judgments must be handed down within three months of the hearing, with extensions to three to six months acceptable in ordinary cases and perhaps up to nine months only for extraordinarily complex matters burdened by vast evidence or novel constitutional questions.

Even the court’s own critics and annual reports acknowledge that prolonged delays erode public confidence, yet this matter now stands at more than four times the prescribed period. The Phala Phala case itself could not be simpler. It asks one straightforward question: did parliament act rationally and lawfully when it rejected the independent section 89 panel’s findings and voted against any further probe into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s conduct?

[paywall]

There are no intricate doctrinal tangles or endless expert disputes, only the application of basic rationality review to a clear parliamentary decision. The underlying facts remain uncomplicated and damning. In February 2020, thieves stole about $580 000 (around R10 million at the time) in undeclared foreign currency stashed in furniture at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm.

This cash, tied to undeclared game sales, breached exchange control laws, tax obligations and anti-money laundering provisions. Ramaphosa’s response — deploying his presidential protection unit for a covert cross-border pursuit of suspects — bypassed standard South African Police Service channels and raised immediate questions of state resource abuse and executive overreach. This delay stands in stark contrast to the Constitutional Court’s handling of similar high-stakes matters involving presidential accountability. Consider the Nkandla case, where the court addressed Jacob Zuma’s alleged failure to implement the Public Protector’s report on improper state spending at his homestead.

[/paywall]