President Cyril Ramaphosa’s bid to halt South Africa’s impeachment inquiry over the Phala Phala theft scandal has been rejected by Parliament’s committee, which will now proceed with its work despite his legal challenge. The 31-member panel, meeting on Thursday, voted to oppose Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application filed June 12 in the Western Cape High Court, joining the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and African Transformation Movement (ATM) in rejecting his request to pause proceedings until his review of the Section 89 panel’s findings is finalized.

Did You Know? The Section 89 panel’s November 2022 report found prima facie evidence Ramaphosa may have violated the Constitution by failing to investigate the theft of at least $580,000 from his private farm. The Constitutional Court later struck down Parliament’s December 2022 vote to block impeachment, ruling it unconstitutional.

Why is Ramaphosa seeking an interdict?

Ramaphosa’s application argues that allowing the inquiry to proceed while his review application is pending could cause “irreparable” harm to his reputation and rights. He claims he cannot face impeachment without a lawful, valid independent report. His review application, due to be heard in September, challenges the panel’s findings, arguing it misunderstood its mandate by not properly considering the evidence against him.

What does the committee’s decision mean for the impeachment process?

The committee’s stance—backed by a majority and independent legal advice from advocate William Mokhare SC—means the inquiry will advance despite Ramaphosa’s legal challenge. Mokhare advised the panel to either oppose the interdict outright or file an explanatory affidavit outlining its position, but cautioned against expressing views on the merits of the case itself. The committee will meet June 24 to draft its terms of reference and elect leadership, with Chairperson Makashule Gana stating it will proceed “until a court of law tells us otherwise.”

Expert Insight: This legal battle tests the boundaries of executive privilege versus parliamentary oversight. If Ramaphosa succeeds in delaying the inquiry, it could set a precedent allowing future leaders to stall accountability through interdicts—echoing former President Jacob Zuma’s 2021 attempt to block his imprisonment. The Constitutional Court’s May 2026 ruling already undermined Parliament’s earlier attempt to block impeachment, but the high court’s decision on jurisdiction remains untested.

How are political parties responding?

The EFF, ATM, DA, Bosa, ActionSA, ACDP, UDM, UAT, and FF Plus all support opposing the interdict, framing it as a matter of public accountability and constitutional principle. EFF leader Julius Malema called the Constitutional Court’s directive “very clear,” while DA Chief Whip Glynnis Breytenbach urged the Speaker to “vigorously oppose” the application. The Patriotic Alliance (PA) is the sole party opposing the committee’s stance, arguing the inquiry should wait for Ramaphosa’s review outcome.

Ramaphosa Farm Theft | Legal basis for report challenge

The ANC’s nine committee members remain cautious, with MP Mikateko Mahlaule emphasizing the panel’s impartiality while defending its right to exist. Legal concerns over the high court’s jurisdiction—raised by Mokhare and MK’s Dr John Hlophe, citing Zuma’s failed interdict attempt—add another layer to the dispute.

What could happen next?

The Western Cape High Court will now weigh Ramaphosa’s interdict application against the committee’s opposition. If granted, the interdict could delay proceedings for months or years, forcing appeals that may reach the Constitutional Court. If denied, the inquiry will proceed, potentially leading to public hearings where Ramaphosa may face questions about his handling of the Phala Phala theft and broader allegations of misconduct.

What could happen next?

Analysts expect the Speaker’s role to be critical: the committee plans to lobby Thoko Didiza to formally oppose the application. Should the high court rule against Ramaphosa, the inquiry’s next steps—including leadership elections and terms of reference—will define its trajectory.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Phala Phala saga?
The case involves the theft of at least $580,000 from President Ramaphosa’s private farm in 2020. A parliamentary panel found prima facie evidence he may have violated the Constitution by failing to investigate the theft openly.

Why is Ramaphosa challenging the impeachment inquiry?
He argues the Section 89 panel’s findings are flawed and that proceeding with impeachment while his legal review is pending could cause “irreparable” harm to his reputation and rights.

Could Ramaphosa’s interdict delay the inquiry for years?
Yes. If granted, appeals could extend the process significantly, potentially reaching the Constitutional Court. The committee’s legal advisors have warned this could set a dangerous precedent for executive interference in parliamentary oversight.

With the committee proceeding despite Ramaphosa’s legal challenge, how might this affect public trust in South Africa’s accountability mechanisms?