The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) has sent the Section 89 panel report on the Phala Phala scandal back to parliament, potentially reopening the path towards an impeachment inquiry against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The ConCourt delivered its much-anticipated judgment on Friday, 8 May 2026, more than 500 days after the case was heard in November 2024.
Why did EFF and ATM approach the ConCourt?
The parties turned to the apex court after parliament declined to adopt the Section 89 independent panel report, which could have triggered an impeachment inquiry against the president.
The panel concluded that there was sufficient basis for Ramaphosa to answer questions about the theft of approximately $580 000 (about R9.6 million) allegedly stolen from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.
However, in December 2022, the National Assembly voted against referring the report to an impeachment committee.
The ANC used its majority at the time, with MPs following the party’s instruction to reject the findings.
ConCourt judgment on Phala Phala
During Friday’s proceedings, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya apologised for the delay, which sparked heavy criticism.
“I start by taking full responsibility for the delay in producing this judgment concerning an extremely difficult matter of national importance, and I tender my sincere apology to the parties, my colleagues and fellow South Africans for the inconvenience it has caused,” she said.
Delivering the judgment herself, Maya noted that the EFF and ATM were seeking an order declaring parliament’s vote unlawful and irrational.
The applicants, she highlighted, also sought to have Rule 129I of the National Assembly rules declared unconstitutional and invalid.
Maya said that while the application was filed more than a year after the parliamentary vote took place, this didn’t stop the apex court from hearing the matter.
“This court has previously held that it must be determined first whether delay is unreasonable and second, whether the interests of justice require that the delay be overlooked.
“The first judgment finds that the substantial delay, which was not explained, is unreasonable; however, it finds that several factors favour overlooking the delay,” the chief justice.
Watch the proceedings below:
Application ‘not moot’
The relief sought by the applicants was not moot, as nothing precluded hearing a challenge to the National Assembly’s rules, according to the chief justice.
Maya added that an impeachment inquiry could take many months.
She said the rules had the effect of blocking an impeachment inquiry without meaningful engagement on the merits of a motion when voting in parliament.
This undermined the “values of accountability and transparency”.
It was found that Rule 129I was “inconsistent with the constitution” and, therefore, “invalid”.
As a result, Maya said the National Assembly must correct the rule.
In addition, the Section 89 panel report must proceed to an impeachment committee.
“The first judgment finds that the EFF has been successful.”
Other judgments
The second judgment, however, took a different view.
Judge Jody Kollapen said that even if Rule 129I was unconstitutional, this did not mean that the National Assembly’s vote was invalid.
The last judgment, penned by three judges, found that once the rule is set aside, “the vote taken cannot stand”.
“The third judgment concludes that Rule 129I is unconstitutional and must be set aside.
“It further holds that the National Assembly’s vote must likewise be set aside because it was taken under an invalid rule that prevented the National Assembly from properly determining whether a ground for impeachment existed.
“The vote, therefore, lacked a lawful foundation,” Maya said.
