Constitutional Court Orders Parliament to Restart Ramaphosa Impeachment Inquiry

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa pledged to challenge a decision by the country’s top court reviving an impeachment inquiry against him. In a late-night televised announcement on May 12, 2026, Ramaphosa said he would take the panel report to court, repeating his long-held stance that he disagreed with its reasoning. The Constitutional Court ruling occurred in the days before May 12, 2026.

Last week before that date, the court ruled that parliament’s vote to stop the impeachment process was unlawful and ordered parliament to restart the inquiry. South Africa’s Constitutional Court ordered lawmakers to restart scrutiny of an impeachment inquiry against President Cyril Ramaphosa. Parliament had already outlined steps to set up an impeachment committee to probe him further.

Ramaphosa’s lawyers are expected to argue that lawmakers cannot move ahead with impeachment if the report is under legal challenge. They may also ask the courts to temporarily block the legislature from acting until the review is complete. The Phala Phala incident became public in 2022 after a former intelligence chief accused Ramaphosa of trying to cover it up.

In response, parliament set up a panel led by a retired chief justice. The panel found that Ramaphosa’s farming business exposed him to a conflict of interest, that he may have broken anti-graft laws by failing to report the crime, and that he abused state resources with off-the-books investigations. Parliament had halted scrutiny after binning that report.

The legislature, dominated by the African National Congress, voted to stop the impeachment process. Semafor reported that the Constitutional Court determined this vote was unlawful. President Cyril Ramaphosa stated that he disagreed with the panel report’s reasoning.

He said the panel report’s findings were based on “hearsay allegations” and that “no evidence, let alone sufficient evidence, has been presented” to show he violated the constitution or the law.

““To do so would be to give credence to a panel report that unfortunately has grave flaws.””

“— President Cyril Ramaphosa President Cyril Ramaphosa rejected calls from opposition parties to resign. He argued that resigning “would be to give credence to a panel report that unfortunately has grave flaws.” The 2020 theft involved foreign currency taken from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm. Semafor reported that the panel concluded Ramaphosa had a case to answer on the three points of conflict of interest, possible anti-graft law violations and abuse of state resources. Ramaphosa’s move shifts the fight from a hostile parliament to the courts. This development eases immediate pressure on the country’s fragile coalition government while his legal challenge proceeds. Semafor reported that Ramaphosa’s fiercest opponents, the EFF and MK Party, accused him of using so-called Stalingrad tactics, a phrase describing long court battles meant to delay accountability. His lawyers’ expected arguments center on the impossibility of advancing impeachment while the report faces active legal challenge.”