South Africa’s Constitutional Court Revives Impeachment Proceedings Against Ramaphosa

South Africa’s Constitutional Court ruled unanimously on Friday that Parliament acted unconstitutionally when it blocked efforts to investigate and potentially impeach President Cyril Ramaphosa over the so-called “Farmgate” scandal, sending shockwaves through the country’s political establishment and renewing pressure on a president who has spent the past two years fighting for survival.

Court rules Parliament violated Constitution

The judgment, delivered by Chief Justice Raymond Zondo, found that the National Assembly’s decision to block the establishment of an impeachment committee was inconsistent with the Constitution. The court ordered Parliament to reconvene the committee without delay and said its proceedings must begin within 30 days. The case was brought by the Democratic Alliance and other opposition parties who argued that MPs who voted against impeachment were protecting the president at the expense of their constitutional duties.

The case centres on allegations that Ramaphosa concealed the discovery of a large sum of foreign currency — apparently the proceeds of a rhino horn deal — that was stolen from his game farm in 2020. The president denied knowing about the money, but investigators found that millions of dollars in cash had been buried on his property, prompting questions about how it got there and why it was not reported to authorities.

What the ruling means

The ruling does not automatically remove Ramaphosa from office. What it does is reopen a constitutional process that could, if the impeachment committee finds sufficient evidence of serious misconduct, lead to a formal impeachment vote in the full National Assembly. The threshold for impeachment is high — two-thirds of MPs must vote in favour — and the governing ANC holds a majority in the assembly, making removal politically unlikely unless dozens of ANC MPs break ranks.

But the political damage is real. The ruling confirms what many South Africans suspected: that Parliament’s initial refusal to act was a deliberate protective move by the ANC’s leadership to shield the president. It also feeds into a broader narrative, pushed by the Economic Freedom Fighters and other critics, that the ANC treats its leaders as above the law.

Ramaphosa’s response

Ramaphosa, who has maintained that he did nothing wrong and that the money was from a legitimate sale, welcomed the ruling and said his government would comply fully with the court’s order. “South Africa’s institutions must be respected,” he said in a brief statement. “We will work with Parliament to ensure the process is completed.”

His allies within the ANC have been more combative. Senior party figures argue that the opposition is trying to destabilise the country ahead of local elections expected later this year, and that the real motivation behind the court case is political rather than principled.

Political implications

South Africa is in a delicate political moment. Ramaphosa took office in 2018 after Jacob Zuma was forced out amid corruption scandals, and he has tried to position himself as a reformer who would restore integrity to the presidency. The Farmgate controversy has badly dented that image. Polls show his personal approval ratings have fallen to their lowest level since he became president.

Within the ANC, the ruling opens space for rivals to position themselves. Former health minister Zweli Mkhize and former finance ministerNhlamulo Nghidimbasha are among the figures seen as potential challengers if Ramaphosa’s position becomes untenable. None have moved openly yet, but internal party discussions are reportedly intensifying.

The case also has broader implications for South Africa’s constitutional culture. The court’s willingness to rule against the executive and against the governing party’s parliamentary majority is a reminder that South Africa’s 1996 Constitution, widely regarded as one of the most progressive in the world, has real teeth. Friday’s ruling reinforces that principle — and puts Ramaphosa back in the dock.