Authored By: Abongile Bushu
University of Johannesburg
I.Introduction
On 8 May 2026, the Constitutional Court of South Africa delivered a landmark judgment that tore through the political shield protecting President Cyril Ramaphosa from impeachment proceedings over the Phala Phala farm scandal.[1] The National Assembly’s December 2022 vote to reject the Section 89 independent panel report was ruled to be unconstitutional and unlawful by the Court, which also set it aside.[2] In doing so, the supreme court mandated that the panel’s findings, which discovered preliminary evidence that Ramaphosa might have broken anti-corruption laws and his oath of office, be referred to an impeachment committee for additional examination.[3]This article argues that the Phala Phala judgment represents a significant affirmation of judicial independence and the constitutional separation of powers. The Court carried out its constitutional responsibility to assess the legitimacy of parliamentary activity and to guarantee that no institution, including the legislature, operates outside the confines of the Constitution, far from invading Parliament’s territory. The factual and legal context of the issue is examined in Part II. The Court’s logic and main conclusions are examined in Part III. The separation of powers controversy that the ruling caused is examined in Part IV. A final evaluation of the decision’s importance for South Africa’s constitutional democracy is provided in Part V.
Factual and Legal Background
The Phala Phala story began in February 2020 when President Cyril Ramaphosa’s private game property in the province of Limpopo had a substantial amount of foreign currency stolen from it.[4] When former State Security Agency director-general Arthur Fraser filed criminal accusations against Ramaphosa in June 2022, the issue came to light. Fraser claimed that the money had been hidden from authorities and that state resources had been improperly used to look into the theft.[5] Ramaphosa maintained that the money came from a legal buffalo sale to a Sudanese businessman and denied any impropriety.[6] An independent Section 89 panel led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo of the Constitutional Court discovered preliminary evidence in December 2022 that suggested Ramaphosa might have violated the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act and the Constitution.[7] The panel suggested that an impeachment committee look into the situation further.[8] However, on December 13, 2022, the National Assembly voted 214 to 148 to reject the panel’s report and stop the impeachment proceedings, with the ruling African National Congress using its legislative majority.[9] Rule 129(i) of the National Assembly’s regulations, which allowed Parliament to cease proceedings even after an independent panel had discovered sufficient evidence of possible malfeasance, made this vote possible.[10]The African Transformation Movement and the Economic Freedom Fighters then filed an application with the Constitutional Court, contesting the validity of Rule 129(i) as well as the National Assembly’s vote.[11]
III. The Constitutional Court’s Reasoning
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya handed down the unanimous verdict, declaring that the National Assembly’s vote was invalid due to a “material error of the law.”[12] Crucially, the Court held that Rule 129(i)(b) of the National Assembly rules, which allowed MPs to end impeachment proceedings at that point, was unconstitutional and invalid.[13] The Court’s logic was based on the idea that Parliament does not have unrestricted authority to impeach someone.[14]The National Assembly’s impeachment process failed constitutionally because MPs were allowed to end proceedings even after an independent panel had found sufficient evidence that the president may have committed serious violations warranting further investigation.[15] The Court held that this undermined the very purpose of the Section 89 mechanism, which is to provide a rigorous and independent process for holding the president accountable, even though the legislature enjoys some procedural autonomy.[16]
The Court stipulated that Rule 129(i) be interpreted to require that, in cases where an independent panel finds adequate evidence, the matter “must be referred” to an impeachment committee for a thorough investigation, awaiting changes to the National Assembly rules.[17] The Court further clarified that where a panel finds inadequate evidence, the National Assembly may still vote to proceed with an inquiry, in which case the matter must also be brought to an impeachment committee.[18] The Court further ordered that the panel’s report be sent straight to Parliament’s impeachment committee.[19] Notably, the Court did not rule on the merits of the Phala Phala case.[20] Its decision was limited to whether the legislative process was constitutional.[21] This is an important distinction: the Court was evaluating whether Parliament had properly fulfilled its constitutional duties in handling the Section 89 report, not whether Ramaphosa was guilty of misconduct.[22]
The Separation of Powers Debate
A heated discussion concerning the division of powers between the legislative and judicial branches has been sparked by the Phala Phala ruling. The Constitutional Court may have intruded too far into the purview of Parliament, according to the African National Congress. [23]The ANC is “worried about encroachment and separation of powers, that our judges have got to be alive to that, dictating to what Parliament must do,” according to ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula.[24] In a similar vein, the Freedom Front Plus applauded the ruling but voiced unease over the Court’s “to some extent, eroded the separation of powers by prescribing to Parliament how it should manage its internal processes.[25] The party contended that the Court had overreached the legislative branch by dictating not just what needed to happen but also how the process should go going forward.[26] However, these worries misinterpret the nature of constitutional adjudication. The judiciary is still able to examine legislative behaviour despite the separation of powers. Conversely, the Constitution specifically gives the courts the authority to decide whether a particular legislation or behaviour is in line with the Constitution.[27] Professor Karthy Govender, an expert in constitutional law, noted that the judiciary is only carrying out its constitutional obligations by deciding matters that are presented to it.[28] The decision clearly conveys a positive signal about South Africa’s democratic roots, according to legal expert Mpumelelo Zikalala “It shows that no one is above the law.” Every decision and action, including those made by the president and Parliament, shall be examined in light of our legal principles and decided by the court.[29]The Court’s action was an essential exercise of its constitutional authority to defend the rule of law, not an act of judicial overreach. Although they are entitled to respect, Parliament’s policies and processes are still subject to constitutional scrutiny.[30]It is the duty of the courts to declare that the legislature’s actions are unconstitutional.[31] The Court only demanded that the impeachment procedure follow the constitutionally required course, it did not specify the substantive outcome of the proceeding.[32]The ruling also emphasizes how crucial the courts are as a check on the authority of the legislature and the executive branch. The decision “has been interpreted by legal experts as a significant vote of confidence in the independence of the judiciary and the resilience of South Africa’s constitutional democracy,” according to the African News Agency.[33]It restates the fundamental idea that no organization or person is immune from legal scrutiny.[34]
Conclusion
The Phala Phala ruling of the Constitutional Court marks a turning point in South African constitutional law. The Court has reaffirmed the idea that Parliament’s impeachment powers are subject to constitutional limitations by ruling that the National Assembly’s decision was illegal and invalidating it. The ruling confirms that the Section 89 mechanism is a constitutional procedure intended to guarantee significant accountability rather than just a political tool. The Court carried out its constitutional obligation to examine whether legislative behaviour was lawful, far from interfering with the separation of powers. The separation of powers mandates that each arm of government function within its constitutional limitations rather than shielding the legislature from judicial inspection.³¹ The Court only mandated that the impeachment procedure be carried out in conformity with the Constitution; it did not prescribe the result of the process. The ruling conveys a strong message about the judiciary’s independence and the tenacity of South Africa’s constitutional democracy. It proves that no one is above the law, not even the President, and that Parliament cannot use votes with defective procedures to shield the administration from accountability. The Phala Phala ruling serves as a reminder of the courts’ duty to protect the Constitution and uphold the rule of law as the impeachment committee gets to work.
Reference(S):
[1] Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others [2026] ZACC 15 (8 May 2026) para 1. See also ‘South Africa top court finds Phala Phala vote was unconstitutional’ (CGTN News, 8 May 2026) https://newsaf.cgtn.com accessed 5 August 2026
[2] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 45.
[3] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 5. See also ‘ConCourt rules Phala Phala impeachment vote unconstitutional’ (Sunday Times, 8 May 2026) https://www.sundaytimes.co.za accessed 5 August 2026.
[4] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 5.
[5] ‘Phala Phala ruling: A new dawn for judicial independence in South Africa’ (African News Agency, 9 May 2026) https://africannewsagency.com accessed 5 August 2026.
[6] ‘Phala Phala ruling: A new dawn for judicial independence in South Africa’ (African News Agency, 9 May 2026) https://africannewsagency.com accessed 5 August 2026.
[7] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 8. See also ‘ConCourt sets aside National Assembly vote on Phala Phala’ (eNCA, 8 May 2026) https://www.enca.com accessed 5 August 2026.
[8] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 9.
[9] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 10.
[10] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 12.
[11] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 2.
[12] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 45.
[13] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 44.
[14] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 40.
[15] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 41.
[16] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 42.
[17] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 46(a).
[18] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 46(b).
[19] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 47. See also ‘Ramaphosa bids to block impeachment process’ (The Witness, 27 May 2026) https://witness.co.za accessed 5 August 2026.
[20] Ibid
[21] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 48.
[22] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 49.
[23] ANC decries alleged encroachment by Apex Court’ (eNCA, 21 July 2026) https://www.enca.com accessed 5 August 2026.
[24] ANC decries alleged encroachment by Apex Court’ (n 23).
[25] Freedom Front Plus concerned about Constitutional Court’s Phala Phala ruling’ (Freedom Front Plus, 8 May 2026) https://www.vfplus.org.za accessed 5 August 2026.
[26] Freedom Front Plus concerned’ (n 25).
[27] Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 172(1)(a).
[28] Phala Phala ruling: A new dawn for judicial independence in South Africa’ (n 5).
[29] Ibid.
[30] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 50.
[31] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 51.
[32] Economic Freedom Fighters (n 1) para 52.
[33] Phala Phala ruling: A new dawn for judicial independence in South Africa’ (n 5).
[34]‘A new dawn for judicial independence or another political stunt?’ (Sunday Independent, 9 May 2026) https://sundayindependent.co.za accessed 5 August 2026.
