President Cyril Ramaphosa has responded to the adverse ruling by the Constitutional Court on the Phala Phala case on Friday morning, indicating that he “respects’ the court’s decision.
In a statement released just hours after the ruling, the presidency emphasised the importance of the rule of law and that no individual should be treated as being beyond the reach of the law.
“President Ramaphosa has been consistent in providing his full assistance to the various enquiries into this matter. President Ramaphosa maintains that no person is above the law and that any allegations should be subjected to due process without fear, favour or prejudice,” the statement reads.
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.
Trust in judicial institutions
Ramaphosa also urged South Africans to respect the Constitutional Court’s ruling and to continue placing trust in the country’s judicial institutions.
The response is the president’s first public reaction to the judgment.
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.
ConCourt’s exclusive jurisdiction
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.
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.
The EFF has immediately written to National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza demanding the immediate establishment of a parliamentary impeachment committee.
- President Cyril Ramaphosa respects the Constitutional Court ruling declaring unconstitutional a parliamentary rule that blocked a full impeachment inquiry into the Phala Phala case.
- The court invalidated National Assembly Rule 129(i), which allowed MPs to stop impeachment proceedings before a full inquiry, stating it contradicted the constitution.
- Chief Justice Mandisa Maya emphasized the court's exclusive jurisdiction in constitutional matters involving parliamentary and presidential obligations.
- The ruling followed an application by the EFF, supported by the African Transformation Movement, alleging Ramaphosa's involvement in wrongdoing related to a burglary at his Phala Phala farm.
- Ramaphosa urged South Africans to respect the court's decision and maintain trust in judicial institutions, reaffirming that no one is above the law.
President Cyril Ramaphosa has responded to the adverse ruling by the Constitutional Court on the Phala Phala case on Friday morning, indicating that he "respects' the court’s decision.
In a statement released just hours after the ruling, the presidency emphasised the importance of the rule of law and that no individual should be treated as being beyond the reach of the law.
"President Ramaphosa has been consistent in providing his full assistance to the various enquiries into this matter. President Ramaphosa maintains that no person is above the law and that any allegations should be subjected to due process without fear, favour or prejudice," the statement reads.
Ramaphosa also urged
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.
