Ramaphosa fights to contain renewed impeachment threat over Phala Phala scandal

Image credit: @CyrilRamaphosa/ X

Our Correspondence

PRETORIA, South Africa — Nearly four years after allegations surrounding a burglary at President Cyril Ramaphosa's private game farm first shook South African politics, the so-called Phala Phala scandal has returned to the center of national debate, reopening questions about accountability, constitutional oversight and the future of the country's governing coalition.

What many observers believed had become a dormant controversy has been dramatically revived following a Constitutional Court ruling that cleared the way for Parliament to revisit impeachment proceedings against the president. 

The decision has triggered a complex political and legal confrontation that could dominate South African politics for months and become one of the most significant institutional tests of Ramaphosa's presidency.

While the prospect of immediate impeachment remains remote, analysts say the renewed inquiry carries substantial political risks for a president who has built much of his political identity around anti-corruption reform, institutional renewal, and restoring public trust after the scandal-plagued administration of former president Jacob Zuma.

The scandal that refuses to disappear

The controversy stems from a February 2020 burglary at Ramaphosa's Phala Phala Game Farm in Limpopo Province, where thieves allegedly stole a large quantity of foreign currency hidden inside furniture on the property.

The incident remained largely unknown to the public until former State Security Agency director-general Arthur Fraser filed a criminal complaint in 2022, alleging that the president and his associates had orchestrated a cover-up instead of reporting the matter through normal law enforcement channels.

Fraser's allegations triggered a political firestorm.

Opponents accused Ramaphosa of failing to properly declare foreign currency held at the farm, concealing the theft from authorities, and allowing state resources to be used in efforts to track down suspects across borders. Some critics further alleged that individuals connected to the investigation were intimidated or pressured into silence.

Ramaphosa has consistently denied wrongdoing.

The president maintains that the money originated from the legitimate sale of buffaloes to a foreign buyer and that no laws were broken. He has repeatedly argued that political opponents have exaggerated or distorted the facts in an attempt to remove him from office.

Yet despite those denials, the case has remained politically damaging because it struck at the core of Ramaphosa's public image as a reformer committed to transparency and good governance.

Supporters of  Ramaphosa demonstrated in Cape Town on Tuesday, 13, Dec 2022 before a debate on a report by a panel of experts who said he might have violated his oath of office.Credit...Esa Alexander/Reuters

The report that nearly ended Ramaphosa's presidency

The crisis reached its most dangerous point in late 2022.

An independent parliamentary panel established under Section 89 of South Africa's Constitution was tasked with determining whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a formal impeachment inquiry.

Led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, the panel concluded that there was prima facie evidence suggesting Ramaphosa may have questions to answer regarding potential constitutional violations and possible breaches of anti-corruption obligations.

The findings sent shockwaves through South African politics.

Ramaphosa reportedly considered resigning, while markets reacted nervously amid fears of political instability. The African National Congress (ANC) ultimately rallied behind its leader, using its parliamentary majority to block the next stage of impeachment proceedings.

At the time, the vote effectively ended the immediate threat to Ramaphosa's presidency.

Or so it appeared.

Constitutional Court changes the game

The situation changed dramatically after a legal challenge brought by the opposition Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF).

In a landmark ruling delivered in May 2026, South Africa's Constitutional Court found that Parliament's handling of the Ngcobo panel report had been legally flawed. The judgment overturned the National Assembly's previous decision and ordered lawmakers to properly reconsider the matter through constitutional processes.

The ruling did not determine whether Ramaphosa committed any wrongdoing.

Instead, it focused on Parliament's obligations under the Constitution and effectively reopened a process that many believed had already been settled.

The decision was widely viewed as a significant affirmation of constitutional accountability and parliamentary oversight.

For Ramaphosa, however, it reopened a political battle he had spent years trying to put behind him.

A two-front battle emerges

The president now finds himself fighting simultaneously in Parliament and in the courts.

On the legislative front, National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has established a multi-party committee tasked with considering the impeachment process and evaluating the implications of the Ngcobo panel's findings.

The committee represents one of the broadest parliamentary exercises in constitutional accountability since the end of apartheid, bringing together lawmakers from across South Africa's political spectrum.

Its immediate task is procedural, but its long-term significance could be profound.

If the committee determines that sufficient grounds exist to proceed, Parliament could move toward a formal inquiry into the president's conduct.

At the same time, Ramaphosa has launched a judicial counteroffensive.

His legal team is seeking to have the original Section 89 panel report reviewed and set aside, arguing that the panel exceeded its mandate and relied on evidence that was either unreliable or improperly considered.

According to court filings, the president contends that some materials cited by the panel included hearsay evidence, disputed recordings and documents that were never properly tested through adversarial legal procedures.

The strategy appears aimed at undermining the foundation upon which renewed impeachment proceedings are being built.

Should Parliament attempt to move ahead before the courts rule on the matter, Ramaphosa's lawyers have indicated they may seek an urgent interdict to halt the process.

The result is an extraordinary constitutional confrontation in which judges and lawmakers may simultaneously be asked to determine the future of a sitting president.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa faces a more challenging political battle over the Phala Phala scandal than in 2022, with coalition partners now holding greater influence in a fragmented Parliament. Image: Ignacio Lopez Isasmendi/ZUMA/picture alliance

Why the political landscape is different this time

The most important difference between the current crisis and the events of 2022 is the political environment in which it is unfolding.

When Parliament first considered the Phala Phala matter, the ANC still held an outright majority in the National Assembly and could largely determine outcomes on its own.

That political reality no longer exists.

Following the 2024 general election, the ANC lost its parliamentary majority for the first time since the end of apartheid. The party now governs through a fragile and often uneasy Government of National Unity (GNU) that includes several coalition partners.

This means Ramaphosa cannot rely solely on ANC votes to manage the political fallout.

Coalition partners, particularly the Democratic Alliance (DA), have emphasized the importance of allowing constitutional processes to proceed without interference. While the DA has not endorsed impeachment, it has argued that accountability mechanisms must be respected regardless of political consequences.

The changed parliamentary arithmetic introduces a new layer of uncertainty.

Even if coalition partners stop short of supporting impeachment, they may be unwilling to shield the president in the way the ANC did four years ago.

Removing a sitting president would require a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament—a threshold analysts say remains difficult to achieve. Image: Jerome Delay/AP Photo/picture alliance

Can Ramaphosa actually be impeached?

Despite the renewed pressure, constitutional experts note that removing a South African president remains an exceptionally difficult undertaking.

Under Section 89 of the Constitution, impeachment requires a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly.

That threshold is intentionally high and designed to prevent impeachment from becoming a routine political weapon.

For Ramaphosa to be removed, opposition parties would likely need support not only from coalition partners but also from a significant number of ANC lawmakers.

At present, there is little evidence that such a coalition exists.

Most analysts therefore, view impeachment as politically possible but not immediately probable.

The greater danger for Ramaphosa may be reputational rather than constitutional.

A lengthy inquiry would keep the scandal in public view, generate damaging testimony, and potentially weaken both his authority and the ANC's standing ahead of future elections.

As legal and parliamentary proceedings advance, the Phala Phala case is emerging as a critical test of South Africa's commitment to constitutional governance and the rule of law.

A test of South Africa's institutions

Beyond the fate of one president, the Phala Phala case has evolved into a broader test of South Africa's democratic institutions.

Supporters of the inquiry argue that constitutional accountability requires serious allegations against any president to be fully examined, regardless of political considerations.

Ramaphosa's allies counter that due process must be respected and that accusations alone cannot be treated as proof of misconduct.

The coming months will likely determine not only whether the president faces a formal impeachment inquiry, but also how South Africa balances political stability with constitutional accountability in an era of coalition government.

For now, the Phala Phala scandal remains unresolved.