Phala Phala ruling marks a milestone for SA constitutionalism

This article analyses the landmark May 2026 ruling by the Constitutional Court, which fundamentally affects presidential accountability and the impeachment process. The court’s decision reopens impeachment proceedings against the president, focusing on the farm matter and parliament’s obligations under the constitution. Section 89(1) of the 1996 constitution permits the National Assembly to remove the president by a two-thirds majority for serious violations of the constitution, serious misconduct, or inability to perform the functions of office.

The Executive Members’ Ethics Act and Code further require the president to disclose financial interests and to act with integrity. The National Assembly’s rules (129A–129R) set out a three-stage impeachment process: an independent panel review, an impeachment committee inquiry and a final assembly vote. The two-thirds majority threshold is intended to prevent partisan removals while ensuring executive accountability.

In June 2022, a criminal complaint was filed against our president over the alleged theft of foreign currency at his farm and the Presidential Protection Unit’s subsequent handling of the matter. This prompted a section 89(1) impeachment motion and the formation of an independent panel chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo. The Ngcobo panel found preliminary evidence that the president may have violated the executive ethics code, notably by failing to report the theft and allegedly misusing state resources.

[paywall]

The panel recommended further inquiry, but in December 2022, the majority in parliament used Rule 129I to vote down the referral to an impeachment committee, effectively halting the process. The two opposition political parties challenged the parliamentary decision. In May 2026, the Constitutional Court, led by Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, unanimously ruled that parliament’s vote and Rule 129I were unconstitutional.

[/paywall]