South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is back where he was at the end of 2022 – under renewed scrutiny over alleged wrongdoing, facing impeachment proceedings and growing calls for him to step down.
but hey announced He said on Monday that he would not resign and would challenge the impeachment proceedings against him.
“So I want to respectfully make it clear that I will not be resigning,” Ramaphosa said in a televised address.
Ramaphosa’s move comes after Parliament hinted at restarting the impeachment process – and as public anger over the so-called Phala Phala scandal appears to be growing.
Many South Africans have hailed the Constitutional Court ruling of May 8, which overturned a “no” vote by MPs on whether the impeachment process should begin in 2022. Others have called on Ramaphosa to step down.
Ramaphosa’s standing under pressure in public opinion
Three days after the Constitutional Court’s decision, Parliament announced That she would initiate the formation of a new Section 89 impeachment committee. Section 89 is the part of the Constitution of South Africa that determines how a President can be removed from office.
Commenting on the Constitutional Court ruling, Wits University governance expert Thelela Ngsetane-Weka told DW that Ramaphosa is guilty only in the court of public opinion. “…I think we should emphasize this: This is not a return to a verdict of guilty or innocent against the president.”
In his televised address, Ramaphosa indicated he would seek a judicial review in 2022 of the Section 89 Panel report, which prima facie found [Latin for “at first glance”] Evidence that he or she has violated the Constitution or committed misconduct.
The African Transformation Movement (ATM) – a relatively small Christian party that had taken the case to the Constitutional Court with the support of other opposition parties – criticized Ramaphosa on 12 May.
“He is acting in bad faith because in 2022 he misled his caucus, or politically maneuvered with the ANC caucus, to say that this report is legally flawed, so he is going to review it,” ATM parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula told public broadcaster SABC.
“After the ANC closed that report, the Constitutional Court came and said they did not have direct access to challenge that report. From 2023 to 2026, they never saw fit to challenge that report.”
Zungula said ATM had asked Ramaphosa in 2024 why he left the report unchallenged which “stains his character”. “His fighting against the investigation shows what kind of president he is.”
Can ANC MPs save Ramaphosa again?
In 2022, the ANC will still have a majority in Parliament. When the scandal broke, the Democratic Alliance was the opposition party that supported the ATM motion for impeachment. But the ANC defeated it in one vote.
Ngcten-Vika told DW that impeaching a president in South Africa requires a two-thirds majority in parliament. By comparison, a no-confidence vote would require a simple majority.
“I think that’s where we are … and I think the National Assembly, through its speaker, will start the process,” Ngsetane-Weka said, adding that it remains to be seen whether Ramaphosa will get the necessary votes in parliament to stop the process.
“It is now not only before parliament, but I think also before the ANC, the wider ANC, to consider the implications of this,” Ngsetane-Weka told DW.
The ANC is considered fragmented, with some party members not firmly in the Ramaphosa camp since he took over from ousted party leader Jacob Zuma in 2018.
Where does Ramaphosa’s main coalition partner stand now?
But then, the political landscape has changed after the first vote on the impeachment process in 2022. In the 2024 general election, the ANC lost full control of Parliament. The party was then forced to form a government of national unity with other parties, including the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA).
“Politically, whether they will get two-thirds or not,” he said. [majority] “This is really debatable, given the fragmented political landscape, especially with a government of national unity,” Ngaseten-Vika said.
“So I don’t want to speculate too much about how and who they will vote for, but it is safe to say that in the public discussion the Democratic Alliance was insistent that they will not vote to impeach him.”
one in statement On 12 May, the DA wrote: “This remains a crisis of the ANC’s making, rooted in serious unanswered questions about the President’s conduct and the ANC’s long record of shielding its leaders from accountability.”
The party said it was Ramaphosa’s legal right to challenge the Constitutional Court decision, but he should do so without delay.
“President Ramaphosa should bring any review application with reasonable haste and on an expedited basis, so that the legal position can be clarified quickly and the matter is not unduly delayed.”
The DA also urged Parliament to seek urgent legal advice on the presidential review, and said clarity was needed on the implications for the impeachment committee.
Background of the Phala Phala case – big cash, buffalo and arrests in Namibia
The scandal centers on the alleged theft of a large amount of cash from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala Wildlife Farm. This came to light in June 2022 when former detective chief Arthur Fraser publicly stated that he had investigated the theft of approximately $4 million and an illegal investigation.
This matter gained so much momentum that it became a big political scandal. Ramaphosa admitted that he had $580,000 in the premises – the proceeds of the sale of buffalo to a Sudanese businessman. Media reports, citing leaked documents, said that security officials had coordinated illegal arrests in Namibia.
In September that year, Parliament formed an independent Section 89 panel tasked with determining whether Ramaphosa had violated the Constitution, committed serious violations of the law, or committed serious misconduct.
A day after the Constitutional Court ruling, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, an ANC veteran and speaker in parliament at the time of the 2022 vote on impeachment, detailed the process in an interview.
“That process was meant to provide an open air for the president. To make people aware of what happened. It was not meant to prosecute him,” he said.
Many legal and political experts have pointed out that the Constitutional Court of South Africa has reinforced the principle that no one is above the law.
Michael Oti and Thuso Khumalo in Johannesburg contributed reporting.
Edited by: Keith Walker