EFF leader Julius Malema will pick a fresh battle with President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Constitutional Court this week over the Phala Phala case without his long-time allies, Floyd Shivambu and Adv Dali Mpofu on his side.
Mpofu had been central to many cases against Ramaphosa, and Shivambu has consistently stood with Malema in the EFF. Both have now joined former president Jacob Zuma’s MK Party.
Stepping into the spotlight together with Malema will be advocate Kameel Premhid, who will lead a legal team representing the EFF in this high-stakes battle. Joining Premhid are advocates Mfesane ka-Siboto, Brandon Casey, Nelisiwe Zikalala, Pumezo Vabaza and Jade Naidoo.
They will face off with advocate Wim Trengove SC, representing Ramaphosa, and advocate Thembeka Ngcukaitobi, representing the ANC. Malema wants the apex court to set aside parliament’s decision to dismiss the parliament-sanctioned report which found that Ramaphosa had a case to answer after millions of rands in foreign currency were stolen at his Phala Phala farm in Limpopo in 2020.
In the court papers he filed, Malema accuses the ANC of using its parliamentary majority to shield Ramaphosa from accountability.
Trengove and Ngcukaitobi disagree.
Malema’s legal team leans heavily on the report of the Zondo commission into allegations of state capture, arguing that the ANC prematurely halted the impeachment process against Ramaphosa despite a parliamentary panel’s finding of “prima facie evidence” of constitutional violations.
“The National Assembly resolved to investigate but the ANC used its majority to prematurely stop the impeachment process,” Malema declared, highlighting what he calls a pattern of obstruction noted by the Zondo commission.
The Zondo report, he says, criticises the ANC’s reluctance to hold its leaders accountable, accusing the party of prioritising “toeing the party line” over its legal duty.
Malema says his case is further bolstered by previous comments by ANC chairperson Gwede Mantashe, who allegedly warned members against defying party directives. “Ask Makhosi Khoza what happens when you defy the ANC,” Mantashe reportedly cautioned, suggesting expulsion for dissenters.
Malema argues this creates a “climate of fear” among ANC members, undermining their ability to vote with conscience.
“The ANC’s stance runs contrary to the oath all MPs take,” he insists, invoking Zondo’s words on the necessity of addressing corruption.
Malema challenged the parliament’s narrow rejection of the panel’s findings, arguing that it should have led to a full investigation by an impeachment committee.
“On a proper interpretation, the National Assembly could only have voted down the report if no prima facie case was made against the president,” he asserted.
He also criticised the assembly’s “legal irregularity” in dismissing the panel’s report,
Malema proposed changes to prevent majority parties from quashing impeachment processes prematurely.
“By allowing the National Assembly to vote on the panel’s report at the early fact-finding stage, the possibility exists that a party that controls the majority will always vote down the panel’s report,” he warns.
Malema suggests that when a panel concludes there is prima facie evidence, the case should automatically advance to an impeachment committee.
“The EFF believes that this is the only manner to effectively hold the president accountable under Section 89 of the Constitution,” he declared. “The Constitution demands more than a mere preliminary investigation – it demands accountability,” Malema stress.
Concluding his argument, Malema warns that without amendments, the impeachment process would remain vulnerable to abuse. “Where such prima facie cases are established, they should by default be subject to further investigation and scrutiny,” he argues,
echoing the essential need to protect democratic integrity.
