South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is right back to where he was in late 2022: under renewed scrutiny over alleged wrongdoing, facing an impeachment process and mounting calls to step down.
On Monday, he announced that he will not resign and said he will challenge the impeachment proceedings against him. “I therefore respectfully want to make it clear that I will not resign,” Ramaphosa said in a televised address.
Ramaphosa’s move came after South Africa’s parliament signaled it will restart the impeachment process — and as public indignation over the so-called Phala Phala scandal appears to be intensifying.
Many South Africans had praised the previous Constitutional Court ruling that overturned a “No” vote by lawmakers in 2022 on whether an impeachment process should start. Others have been calling on Ramaphosa to step down.
Ramaphosa’s standing in public opinion under pressure
Three days after the Constitutional Court judgment, Parliament announced it would begin setting up a new Section 89 impeachment committee. Section 89 is the part of South Africa’s Constitution that sets out how a president can be removed from office.
Commenting on the Constitutional Court ruling, Thelela Ngcetane-Vika, a governance expert at Wits University, told DW she believed Ramaphosa was only guilty in the court of public opinion. “I think we must emphasize this: It is not a return on a verdict of ‘guilty’ or ‘innocence’ against the president.”
In his televised address, Ramaphosa signaled that he would seek a judicial review of the 2022 Section 89 panel report that found prima facie evidence that he may have violated the constitution or committed misconduct.
The African Transformation Movement (ATM) — the relatively small Christian party that had taken the matter to the Constitutional Court with the backing of other opposition parties — slammed Ramaphosa on May 12.
“He’s acting in bad faith because in 2022, he misled his caucus, or politically maneuvered with the ANC caucus to say this report is legally flawed, therefore he is going to take it on review,” Vuyo Zungula, the ATM’s parliamentary leader, told the public broadcaster SABC.
“After the ANC shut down that report, the Constitutional Court came and said he does not have direct access to challenge that report,” he added. “From 2023 up until 2026, he never saw it fit to challenge that report.”
Can ANC MPs rescue Ramaphosa again?
In 2022, the ANC still held a majority in parliament. When the scandal broke, the Democratic Alliance was the opposition that supported the ATM motion for an impeachment. But the ANC defeated it in a vote.
Ngcetane-Vika told DW that a vote to impeach the president in South Africa requires a two-thirds majority vote. By comparison, a no-confidence vote would require a simple majority.
“I think that’s where we are […] and I would assume that the National Assembly, through its speaker, it will then start the process,” Ngcetane-Vika said, adding that whether or not Ramaphosa will get the required votes in Parliament to halt the process remains to be seen.
“It is before now, not only the parliament, but it is also, I suppose, before the ANC, the broader ANC, to consider the implication of this,” she told DW.
The ANC is known to be fragmented, with some party members not firmly in Ramaphosa’s camp since he took over from the party’s ousted leader Jacob Zuma in 2018.
Where Ramaphosa’s main coalition partner stands now
But then, there’s the changed political landscape following the first vote on an impeachment process in 2022. In a 2024 general election, the ANC lost its outright controlling majority. The party was forced to build a government of national unity with other parties, including the opposing Democratic Alliance (DA).
“Politically, whether or not he will get the two-thirds [majority] is really debatable, given the fragmented political landscape, especially with the government of national unity,” Ngcetane-Vika said. “So I don’t want to over-speculate on how and who will vote for, but it’s safe to say that in the public discourse we had the Democratic Alliance seem to be insinuating that they will not vote for him to be impeached.”
In a statement on May 12, the DA wrote: “This remains an ANC-made crisis, rooted in serious unanswered questions about the president’s conduct and the ANC’s long record of shielding its own leaders from accountability.”
It was Ramaphosa’s legal right to challenge the Constitutional Court ruling, but he should do so without delay, the party said. “President Ramaphosa should bring any review application with due haste and on an expedited basis, so that the legal position is clarified quickly and this matter is not delayed unnecessarily.”
The DA also urged the parliament to seek urgent legal counsel on the president’s review, saying clarity was needed on the implications for the impeachment committee.
Background to the Phala Phala case
The scandal centers on the alleged theft of a large sum of cash from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala Wildlife farm. It came to light in June 2022 when former spy chief Arthur Fraser went public with what he said was a theft of close on $4 million (€3.4 million) and an unlawful investigation.
The case triggered what became a major political scandal. Ramaphosa admitted that he had $580,000 — the proceeds of the sale of buffalo to a Sudanese businessman — on the premises. Media reports, quoting from leaked documents, said security officials had coordinated unlawful arrests in Namibia.
In September of that year, Parliament set up an independent Section 89 panel tasked with determining whether Ramaphosa may have violated the constitution, seriously violated the law, or committed serious misconduct.
A day after the Constitutional Court ruling, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula, an ANC veteran and the speaker in Parliament at the time of the 2022 vote on impeachment, detailed the process in an interview.
“That process was meant for the president to ventilate. To take people through everything which happened. It was not meant to put him on trial,” she said.
Several legal and political experts have pointed out that South Africa’s Constitutional Court has reinforced the principle that no one is above the law.
Michael Oti and Thuso Khumalo in Johannesburg contributed reporting.
Edited by: Keith Walker
