President Cyril Ramaphosa has rejected the findings of the Phala Phala report, stating that he has not committed a crime and has not misused public money. In a televised address on Monday night, Ramaphosa maintained his innocence and said he would challenge the Section 89 independent panel report, which found that he had a serious case to answer regarding his handling of the saga.
The Constitutional Court ruled on Friday that the National Assembly’s decision to block a Section 89 inquiry into the Phala Phala scandal was unconstitutional and invalid. The court’s ruling has sparked vociferous calls for Ramaphosa to resign, but he remains resolute, saying he does not intend to step down.
What is the Phala Phala scandal?
The Phala Phala scandal relates to the February 2020 theft of over US$580,000 allegedly hidden in furniture at Ramaphosa’s private game farm, Phala Phala. An independent panel report found that Ramaphosa had a serious case to answer regarding his handling of the saga, but he has consistently maintained that he has not stolen public money, committed any crime, nor violated his oath of office.
Key findings of the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court delivered three key findings in the matter of Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 35/24): Rule 129I of the National Assembly is inconsistent with the Constitution and is invalid. The National Assembly’s vote (with a majority ANC MPs) rejected the Section 89 independent panel report as irrational and unconstitutional, and also invalid. The report must now be referred to Parliament’s impeachment committee for a full parliamentary investigative process.
According to the South African Parliament website, the impeachment committee will be established to investigate the matter further. Ramaphosa has said that he will cooperate with all investigations and enquiries into the matter and will continue to do so.
Here are some key points to consider:
- The Phala Phala scandal has sparked a constitutional crisis in South Africa.
- The Constitutional Court’s ruling has implications for the rule of law and the presidential office.
- Ramaphosa’s rejection of the Phala Phala report has sparked calls for his resignation.
Ramaphosa has said that he has reflected on the Constitutional Court’s judgment and what it means for the country, for the rule of law, and for the presidential office. He has stated that the Constitution remains the guide for the country and that he will continue to cooperate with all institutions that are mandated to deal with these types of matters.
