President Cyril Ramaphosa has formally filed an application in the Western Cape High Court seeking a review of the findings contained in the Section 89 report into the 2020 Phala Phala farm incident, where foreign currency was stolen from the President’s Limpopo property.
The legal move follows a Constitutional Court ruling that determined Parliament acted incorrectly when it previously blocked impeachment proceedings against the President linked to the matter. The Section 89 panel, chaired by a former chief justice, investigated the burglary and produced a report finding prima facie evidence warranting further inquiry.
Dr. Shadi Maganoe, a senior lecturer at the Wits School of Law, provided analysis on the developments. She clarified that the panel’s report did not recommend the President’s impeachment. “The panel itself did not recommend that the president should be impeached. It only said that there is prima facie evidence for a further inquiry,” Dr. Maganoe stated, noting that time constraints faced by the panel were a relevant contextual factor.
President Ramaphosa’s application seeks to have the report set aside entirely, particularly the section recommending that Parliament consider impeachment proceedings. According to Dr. Maganoe, the President’s legal team argues the panel relied on hearsay, misunderstood its powers, and utilized questionable evidence. A central contention is that the panel applied an incorrect evidentiary standard, relying on prima facie evidence—evidence appearing sufficient on the surface—rather than the more rigorous, properly tested standard required for a constitutional process as serious as impeachment.
“Impeachment is the most severe form of accountability and therefore the threshold is much higher,” Dr. Maganoe explained. The application also questions the admissibility of certain evidence, including documents obtained from Namibian police and recordings, suggesting they may have been obtained unlawfully. Should a court find key evidence was improperly obtained, it could undermine the foundation of the Section 89 panel’s recommendations.
The application places Parliament in a complex position. While the Constitutional Court has ordered that the legislative body cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to hold the executive accountable, President Ramaphosa has not sought an interim interdict to halt parliamentary proceedings. Consequently, the parliamentary process continues. However, the President is simultaneously seeking a declaration that any parliamentary steps taken pursuant to the contested report are unlawful, creating what Dr. Maganoe described as “institutional uncertainty.”
“Parliament is now continuing with a process whose legal foundation itself is being challenged,” Dr. Maganoe stated. This presents a strategic dilemma for the National Assembly: proceeding aggressively with an impeachment inquiry based on a report that could later be set aside by the courts risks undermining the legitimacy of the entire process.
The parliamentary process remains in its early stages. Following the recent announcement of members appointed to the Section 89 inquiry committee, next steps include selecting a chairperson and establishing terms of reference, including the inquiry’s scope and procedures. Dr. Maganoe emphasized that even after the committee completes its work and submits a report to the National Assembly, the Assembly must debate the findings before deciding whether to proceed with impeachment. “We’re still far from that impeachment process,” she noted.
Unless President Ramaphosa obtains a court interdict specifically pausing parliamentary proceedings, the two processes—the High Court review application and the parliamentary Section 89 inquiry—will proceed in parallel. The outcome of the President’s application could significantly influence the trajectory of the accountability process, but for now, both legal and parliamentary avenues remain active.