What makes this judgment so vital is that it cuts through the fog of contradictory institutional findings to restore constitutional clarity.
Image: ChatGPT
THIS week, the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) delivered the definitive answer the Phala Phala saga demanded.
In Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, the Court struck down rule 129I of the National Assembly’s Rules as unconstitutional, ordered the Section 89 Independent Panel’s report referred to the Impeachment Committee, and forced Parliament to confront a reality it tried to evade: President Cyril Ramaphosa has a prima facie case to answer.
What makes this judgment so vital is that it cuts through the fog of contradictory institutional findings to restore constitutional clarity.
The four findings could not be more stark.
The South African Reserve Bank (SARB) concluded there was no perfected exchange-control transaction — but disclaimed any mandate to investigate crimes, theft, or misconduct beyond exchange control. This was not exoneration; it was a narrow technical finding disguised as closure.
The Acting Public Protector, Kholeka Gcaleka, went further in cleatring the President. She found the ethics allegations unsubstantiated, declaring no conflict of interest and no improper remunerated work. Yet she simultaneously found SA Police Service (SAPS) officials guilty of gross impropriety for investigating without a docket.
How can officials be corrupt in covering up an investigation while the President bears no responsibility for the very cover-up? The Public Protector’s report exonerating the institution at the top while punishing those below is a failure of moral and constitutional vision.
Then came the Section 89 Independent Panel — retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, retired Judge Thokozile Masipa, Advocate Mahlake Sello SC — who treated the evidence seriously.
They found a prima facie case that the President may have committed serious violations of sections 96(2)(a) and 96(2)(b) of the Constitution, breached PRECCA, demanded discretion from Namibia, abused his office, and concealed more foreign currency than he disclosed.
This was not speculation. This was the only finding that matched the gravity of the allegations.
And now the Constitutional Court has validated that finding by refusing to let Parliament kill the process.
The Court saw what the SARB and Public Protector refused to see: That accountability cannot be outsourced to narrow mandates or convenient clearances. That when an independent panel finds grounds, the process must run its course. That rule 129I was not procedure — it was a shield.
The Constitutional Court’s judgment is a triumph of constitutional supremacy over political protection. It refuses to let the President hide behind procedural tricks or institutionally diluted findings. It restores the two-stage impeachment process — preliminary inquiry, then Assembly decision — exactly as section 89(1) intended.
The SARB and Public Protector tried to close the file. The Section 89 Panel opened it. The Constitutional Court kept it open. And the ANC tried to slam it shut again. The ConCourt said no.
For South Africans, this is the message we needed: The Constitution does not allow the President to be above the law, above scrutiny, or above impeachment. Accountability is mandatory. The ConCourt has made sure of that.
* Sizwe Dlamini is editor of the Sunday Independent.