8 May marks a symbolic date in South Africa’s democratic history. Thirty years ago, on 8 May 1996, the constitution was formally adopted, paving the way for democracy.
Exactly three decades later, the same date brought a major constitutional development of a different kind.
The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) on Friday, 8 May 2026, delivered a significant judgment that now places President Cyril Ramaphosa on the path to face a formal impeachment inquiry.
The apex court found that Parliament acted irrationally in December 2022 when it rejected the referral of a Section 89 panel report to an impeachment committee.
That parliamentary vote has now been set aside.
The National Assembly has now been instructed to resume the process, meaning an inquiry into the president is now unavoidable.
The parliamentary process that will now begin
Although the ConCourt gave no timelines, Parliament is now required to establish an impeachment committee, under Rule 129I of the National Assembly rules, which governs how a president may be removed from office under Section 89 of the constitution.
Section 89 allows for the removal of a president on three grounds: serious violation of the constitution or the law, serious misconduct or inability to perform the duties of office.
Once constituted, the committee will gather evidence, test the credibility of the claims and assess the seriousness of the allegations against Ramaphosa before making recommendations to the National Assembly.
Witnesses, possibly even Ramaphosa himself, are expected to be called, questioned and required to respond to or challenge the president’s version of events relating to Phala Phala.
At the end, the committee’s final report must reflect all viewpoints expressed by MPs during the inquiry.
Phala Phala issues likely to dominate Ramaphosa’s impeachment inquiry
At the heart of the inquiry will most likely be the origin of the $580 000 (about R9.6 million) cash which was stolen from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo on 9 February 2020.
Ramaphosa has previously stated that the money was payment for 20 buffaloes sold to Sudanese businessman Hazim Mustafa, who never took possession of the animals.
Each animal was valued at R400 000, according to Mustafa.
Questions remain, however, about the circumstances under which large sums of cash were allegedly transported and handed over.
Mustafa previously disclosed that on Christmas Day in 2019, he travelled from Sun City in North West to the president’s farm, where he arrived in a limousine.
The Dubai-based businessman, who did not declare the foreign currency according to South African Revenue Services (Sars), claimed that he intended the money to be kept at Phala Phala farm as a form of security deposit for the buffalo transaction.
He also explained that the funds were meant to be used to pay for the buffaloes once suitable buyers were identified and the sales were completed.
Further scrutiny is expected over why the buffalo never delivered and why the money was allegedly not returned to Mustafa, despite the animals remaining on the farm long after the burglary incident.
Allegations of cover-up
The inquiry is also expected to explore the fact that the burglary at Phala Phala was not reported to the South African Police Service (Saps).
A recent declassified Independent Police Investigative Directorate (Ipid) report conclude that the head of the Presidential Protection Service (PPS), Wally Rhoode, deliberately covered up the break-in at Phala Phala.
It was also established that Rhoode was involved in the kidnapping and interrogation of the suspects, and that he crossed the border into Namibia unlawfully to find the perpetrators.
Another key issue is why the cash was allegedly stored in a couch for 44 days without being declared to the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb).
South Africa’s Exchange Control Regulations require that any resident who is in possession of foreign currency must declare it to the National Treasury within 30 days.
Questions also remain about the exact amount of money allegedly taken by the suspected mastermind, Imanuwela David, and his accomplices.
The Namibian national and his fellow compatriots, Froliana Joseph – previously employed as a cleaner on the farm – and her brother Ndilinasho David Joseph, are currently standing trial at the Modimolle Regional Court.
The three face are facing charges of housebreaking, theft and conspiracy to commit burglary.
What happens after impeachment inquiry?
Once the impeachment committee concludes its work, its report must be tabled in the National Assembly for urgent debate.
If the committee recommends removal, Parliament must vote on the matter.
A president is removed from office if at least two-thirds of the 400 MPs in the National Assembly support the recommendation.
The outcome will depend heavily on coalition dynamics following the formation of a government of national unity (GNU) since the ANC lost its outright majority in the 2024 general election.
The seat distribution in Parliament is as follows:
- ANC: 159 seats
- Democratic Alliance (DA): 87 seats
- uMkhonto weSizwe (MK): 58 seats
- Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF): 39 seats
- Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP): 17 seats
- Patriotic Alliance (PA): nine seats
- ActionSA and Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus): six seats each
- African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) and United Democratic Movement (UDM): three seats each
- Rise Mzansi, Build One South Africa (BOSA), African Transformation Movement (ATM), Al Jama-ah, National Coloured Congress (NCC): two seats each
- Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC), United Africans Transformation (UAT), GOOD Party: one seat each
A total of 267 votes is required to remove a president from office.
The ANC and its GNU partners – DA, Rise Mzansi, PA, IFP, FF Plus, UDM, PAC, GOOD and Al Jama-ah – collectively hold 287 seats, meaning they could block an impeachment if they oppose it.
Other parties including the EFF, ATM, UAT, MK Party, BOSA, and ActionSA collectively hold 108 seats, positioning them as a minority bloc in any final vote scenario.
