South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is once more facing formal moves that could lead to his removal from office after the Constitutional Court overturned Parliament’s 2022 decision not to proceed with impeachment. In a televised address he said he will not resign and announced he intends to challenge the renewed impeachment process in court.
The court ruling — delivered on May 8 — cleared the way for Parliament to reopen a Section 89 process, the part of the constitution that governs removal of a president. Three days after the judgment, the National Assembly said it would begin setting up a new Section 89 committee to examine whether Ramaphosa may have breached the constitution or committed serious misconduct. Ramaphosa says he will seek a judicial review of the 2022 Section 89 panel report that earlier found prima facie evidence against him.
Public sentiment and political maneuvering are both intensifying. Many South Africans welcomed the Constitutional Court’s decision as an affirmation that no one is above the law, and some are calling on the president to step down. But others — and Ramaphosa himself — insist the legal process must run its course. Governance expert Thelela Ngcetane-Vika of Wits University cautioned that the current focus is not a criminal conviction but a political and constitutional process; much still depends on parliamentary votes and legal challenges.
The relatively small African Transformation Movement (ATM), which helped take the matter to the Constitutional Court with backing from other opposition parties, has been sharply critical of Ramaphosa. ATM parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula accused the president of acting in bad faith by waiting years to challenge the earlier report, and said leaving the report unchallenged had “left a stain” on Ramaphosa’s character.
Whether an impeachment motion will succeed hinges on arithmetic in the National Assembly. A vote to remove a president under Section 89 requires a two‑thirds majority; by contrast, a motion of no confidence needs only a simple majority. The ANC — historically the dominant force in Parliament — is politically fragmented, and its unity behind Ramaphosa is far from assured. After the 2024 general election the ANC lost outright control of Parliament and now leads a government of national unity that includes former opposition parties such as the Democratic Alliance (DA). That changed arithmetic makes it harder to predict how MPs will vote.
The DA has urged Ramaphosa to move quickly if he intends to seek judicial review, saying any application should be brought on an expedited basis so the legal position is clarified and the impeachment process is not unnecessarily delayed. At the same time the DA has described the situation as an ANC-made crisis, criticizing the party’s record of shielding its leaders from accountability.
The controversy stems from the so-called Phala Phala affair. In June 2022 former intelligence chief Arthur Fraser revealed allegations that a large sum of cash — widely reported to be nearly $4 million — had been stolen from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala wildlife farm. Ramaphosa acknowledged holding $580,000 on the property, money he said derived from the sale of buffalo to a Sudanese businessman. Media reports and leaked documents alleged that security officials were involved in unlawful arrests in neighboring Namibia during the investigation.
Parliament’s independent Section 89 panel, established in September 2022, concluded there was prima facie evidence that warranted further examination of whether the president had violated the constitution or committed serious misconduct. At the time, the ANC used its parliamentary majority to block formal impeachment proceedings. The Constitutional Court’s recent ruling effectively removed the barrier that had prevented Parliament from resuming consideration of the matter.
Former parliamentary speaker and ANC veteran Nosiviwe Mapisa‑Nqakula has described the Section 89 process as intended to allow the president to explain events rather than as a criminal trial. Legal and political experts have emphasized that the court’s decision reinforces the idea that political leaders must be accountable under the law, but they also note that legal contests over procedure and timing can shape outcomes as much as substantive findings.
Ramaphosa’s decision to stay in office and pursue a legal challenge sets up a potentially protracted confrontation between the presidency, Parliament and the courts. Key questions now are whether his supporters in the ANC and coalition partners will deliver the votes needed to block impeachment, how quickly any judicial review will be heard, and whether the Section 89 committee can complete its work before legal rulings affect the process.
For now, the drama will play out across three arenas: the courtroom, where Ramaphosa seeks to narrow or overturn the grounds for renewed scrutiny; Parliament, where committee work and floor votes will determine whether an impeachment motion proceeds; and public opinion, which has increasingly pressed for transparency and accountability since the Phala Phala revelations. The outcome will depend on legal timing, party discipline within the ANC and the positions of coalition partners in the fragile post‑2024 parliamentary landscape.