ConCourt rules Phala Phala report must go back to parliament

Chief Justice Mandisa Maya and Justice Nonkosi Mhlantla during the hearing of the National Health Insurance (NHI) case at the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) on 5 May 2026. Picture: Gallo Images/Sharon Seretlo The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) has sent the Section 89 panel’s report on the Phala Phala scandal back to parliament, paving the way for an impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa to proceed. The ConCourt delivered its much-anticipated judgment at Constitutional Hill in Braamfontein, Johannesburg, on Friday, 8 May 2026.

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM) turned to the apex court after parliament declined to adopt the Section 89 independent panel’s report, which could have triggered an impeachment inquiry against the president. The panel concluded that there wasprima facieevidence for Ramaphosa to answer questions about the theft of approximately $580 000 (about R9.6 million) allegedly stolen from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020. However, in December 2022, the National Assembly voted against referring the report to an impeachment committee.

The ANC used its majority at the time, with MPs following the party’s instruction to reject the findings. During Friday’s proceedings, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya apologised for the delay, which had drawn heavy criticism after more than 500 days had passed since the case was heard in November 2024. “I start by taking full responsibility for the delay in producing this judgment concerning an extremely difficult matter of national importance, and I tender my sincere apology to the parties, my colleagues and fellow South Africans for the inconvenience it has caused,” she said.

[paywall]

Delivering the first judgment, Maya noted that theEFF and ATMwere seeking an order declaring parliament’s vote unlawful and irrational. The applicants went further, she highlighted, challenging the constitutionality of Rule 129I of theNational Assembly’s rules, which governs the process for removing a president from office under Section 89 of the constitution. The chief justice explained that while the application was filed more than a year after the parliamentary vote took place, this didn’t stop the apex court from hearing the matter.

[/paywall]