President Cyril Ramaphosa has formally submitted an application to the Western Cape High Court seeking judicial review of the findings contained in the Section 89 independent panel report concerning the 2020 Phala Phala farm incident. The legal move follows a Constitutional Court ruling that determined Parliament acted improperly in previously blocking impeachment proceedings linked to the alleged theft of foreign currency from the President’s property.
The independent panel, chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, was established to investigate the burglary at Ramaphosa’s Limpopo farm, during which a significant sum in foreign currency was stolen. The panel’s report raised concerns regarding potential constitutional breaches related to the declaration and handling of the recovered funds. President Ramaphosa has consistently denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that the money originated from the legitimate sale of buffalo and was securely stored pending proper declaration procedures.
In the newly filed court papers, the President’s legal team contends that several key aspects of the panel’s findings are legally flawed and warrant being set aside. Central to the application is the argument that the panel applied an incorrect evidentiary threshold, focusing on prima facie evidence rather than assessing whether sufficient evidence existed to justify initiating the Section 89 process. The application further asserts that the panel failed to adequately consider whether the President acted in bad faith, whether his conduct constituted a serious violation of the law, and whether any alleged misconduct was intentional. These arguments echo positions Ramaphosa advanced in prior legal proceedings, including a 2022 review application and his opposition to applications brought by the Economic Freedom Fighters and the African Transformation Movement before the Constitutional Court.
The filing comes as the National Assembly prepares to convene the impeachment committee, with the full list of 31 members representing the ANC, DA, EFF, MK Party, and other political groupings having been announced. Two smaller parties remain unrepresented on the committee for procedural reasons. Notably, President Ramaphosa has not sought an urgent interim interdict to suspend the parliamentary process, meaning the High Court review and the impeachment committee proceedings will advance concurrently.
According to National Assembly rules, particularly Rule 160, the secretary of the impeachment committee is required to convene the inaugural meeting within five days of the members’ announcement. This initial session is expected to include the election of a chairperson and the finalization of the committee’s terms of reference. Legal analysts note that the committee’s mandate should remain constrained to the four specific grounds upon which the African Transformation Movement (ATM) originally launched its impeachment application in 2022—the same grounds examined by the Section 89 independent panel.
The Speaker of the National Assembly has been cited as a respondent in the High Court application. However, procedural precedent suggests the Speaker may file a notice indicating an intention to abide by the court’s eventual ruling, rather than actively opposing the application. Similarly, the retired judges who served on the independent panel retain the option to file responding papers. Legal observers point to comparable precedents, including former Minister Gwede Mantashe’s challenge to a report by retired Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, and the joint application by former Presidents Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma seeking the recusal of Justice Sisi Khampepe from a TRC-related inquiry.
The concurrent progression of judicial and parliamentary processes introduces significant legal complexity. Should the impeachment committee reach findings based on a report that is subsequently set aside by the High Court, it would create substantial uncertainty regarding the validity and enforceability of any parliamentary outcome. President Ramaphosa’s core objective in the current application remains the complete setting aside of the Section 89 panel’s report, which would, in his legal team’s view, remove the foundational basis for the impeachment committee’s continued deliberations.