The Constitutional Court has announced that it will hand down its judgment in the high-profile Phala Phala matter within the next month, with preparations now at an advanced stage. The case, heard on 26 November 2024, centres on whether Parliament failed in its constitutional duty to oversee executive action following allegations involving President Cyril Ramaphosa and the Phala Phala farm incident.
African Transformation Movement (ATM) Parliamentary Leader Vuyo Zungula expressed deep concern over the more than 480-day delay since the hearing, warning that South Africans should be “really, really worried” about the prolonged wait. In a studio interview, Zungula argued that the extended timeline—now exceeding 500 days in total—undermines public confidence in the judiciary, especially since the matter involves established constitutional principles and precedents.
Zungula pointed out that the Constitutional Court had previously delivered judgments on similar issues far more swiftly. He cited the Public Protector’s “Gordhan report” case, resolved within 50 days, and the secret ballot matter, which took about a month. In contrast, this case has taken over 16 months, far beyond the judiciary’s own Norms and Standards for Judicial Officers, which recommend judgments be issued within three to six months unless exceptional circumstances apply.
“The citizens of this country must be really worried,” Zungula stated. He questioned the moral authority of Constitutional Court justices to criticise lower courts for delays when they themselves have taken so long on a case involving “already established principles.”
Zungula further claimed that the delay points to possible political interference, suggesting the court may be protecting President Ramaphosa rather than ruling strictly according to the Constitution and the law. He noted that an independent panel, chaired by a former chief justice, had found there was a “case to answer” regarding alleged abuse of power and violation of the Constitution in the Phala Phala matter, which involved undeclared foreign currency linked to the sale of animals at the president’s Limpopo farm.
The ATM leader highlighted inconsistencies in the handling of the case by various institutions. He referenced statements from the South African Reserve Bank describing a transaction as “not perfected,” while the South African Revenue Service (SARS) reportedly issued a tax clearance despite concerns over undeclared foreign currency. Zungula contrasted this with other cases, such as the arrest of individuals over smaller amounts of undeclared cash, arguing that political power appears to shield the president from accountability.
“Institutions such as the courts depend on perception,” Zungula said. “The manner in which they conduct themselves leads to whether people believe in the integrity of the courts [and] that they are not biased and they just rule according to the law.”
He emphasised that Section 42(3) of the Constitution obliges Parliament to scrutinise and oversee executive action, describing the National Assembly’s 2022 decision not to establish an independent inquiry or ad hoc committee as a violation of this duty. At the time, Parliament voted against setting up a process to examine the independent panel’s findings, despite the panel concluding there was a case to answer.
Zungula stressed that the 2022 parliamentary vote was not directly on impeaching the president but on whether to establish a committee to investigate the facts and determine if wrongdoing had occurred. He argued that the African National Congress’s use of its majority to block further scrutiny undermined constitutional oversight.
If the Constitutional Court finds that Parliament mishandled the process, Zungula said the logical next step would be to initiate an impeachment inquiry. He warned that a ruling perceived as protecting the president could set a dangerous precedent, potentially allowing future presidents, ministers, or public officials to evade accountability for similar violations.
Zungula noted that the ATM had written to the court’s registrar seeking clarity on the timeline. In response on 4 February, the registrar indicated the judgment would be issued “as soon as it is practically possible.” The court has now confirmed that delivery is expected within a month.
The judgment is widely seen as significant for South Africa’s constitutional framework, particularly the balance of power and accountability between the executive, Parliament, and the judiciary. Critics, including the EFF, have raised similar concerns about the delay potentially eroding public trust and suggesting political influence in high-profile cases.
With the ruling imminent, attention now turns to whether the Constitutional Court will uphold strict constitutional oversight or whether the prolonged process will further fuel perceptions of bias in the handling of matters involving the country’s highest office.