The Constitutional Court has declared unconstitutional a National Assembly rule that allowed members of parliament to block a full impeachment inquiry through a preliminary vote in a landmark judgment tied to the long-running Phala Phala game farm saga involving President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Handing down the majority judgment on Friday at the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya ruled that the parliamentary process used to shield Ramaphosa from a full impeachment inquiry was inconsistent with the constitution and therefore invalid.
Maya pointed out that the Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether Parliament or the president has failed to fulfill a constitutional obligation.
“The rule is therefore inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid,” she said.
At the centre of the case was National Assembly Rule 129(i), which created a mechanism allowing lawmakers to halt impeachment proceedings before a full inquiry could be conducted.
“The court found that this process undermined parliament’s constitutional responsibility to properly assess allegations against a sitting president.”
Application lodged in 2022
Maya noted that previous Constitutional Court judgments had already established that parliament is required to maintain a constitutionally compliant framework for impeachment proceedings.
The application was lodged in 2022 by the EFF, supported by the African Transformation Movement, following claims that Ramaphosa may have been involved in wrongdoing over the burglary at his Phala Phala farm.
Ramaphosa and the ANC opposed the application, arguing that the matter did not have sufficient grounds to be heard directly by the Constitutional Court.
Friday’s ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for future impeachment proceedings in South Africa, particularly in cases involving allegations of misconduct against senior public office bearers.
The Phala Phala matter has remained politically contentious since reports surfaced about the theft of foreign currency from Ramaphosa’s farm and concerns over how the incident was handled by law enforcement agencies, the executive, and parliament.
- It appears that the news article content is missing or not visible. Could you please provide the text or details of the article you want summarized?
Maya pointed out that the Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether Parliament or the president has failed to fulfill a constitutional obligation.
“
At the centre of the case was National
"
Maya noted that previous Constitutional Court judgments had already established that parliament is required to maintain a constitutionally compliant framework for impeachment proceedings.
Ramaphosa and the ANC opposed the application, arguing that the matter did not have sufficient grounds to be heard directly by the Constitutional Court.
Friday’s ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for future impeachment proceedings in
