Ramaphosa’s Constitutional Court dilemma

Ahead of South Africa’s critical 4 November 2026 local government elections, with no clear successor and not wanting to give his detractors the victory of being responsible for ending his presidency, President Cyril Ramaphosa, rather than resigning or facing an impeachment inquiry, has decided to go for the “Stalingrad” legal option of challenging or stalling a parliamentary probe. The Constitutional Court on Friday 8 May ruled that Parliament’s 13 December 2022 vote to block an impeachment inquiry against Ramaphosa was unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court did make a judgment on the substance of the allegations against Ramaphosa. “It is declared that the vote of the National Assembly taken on 13 December 2022 … is inconsistent with the Constitution, invalid and it is set aside,” said Chief Justice Mandisa Maya. The Constitutional Court looked at whether Parliament acted within the Constitution in dismissing the recommendation from an independent panel appointed by Parliament and led by the former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, to proceed with an impeachment inquiry into allegations that Ramaphosa broke the law in his handling of the theft of foreign currency at his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo. Ramaphosa is planning to apply for a judicial review of Parliament’s Section 89 panel report. Ramaphosa did not choose to do a judicial review of the panel’s report three years ago, after the ANC used its then majority to vote against the recommendations of the panel’s report during the National Assembly vote that the Constitutional Court now said was unconstitutional and irrational. A judicial review could push the impeachment inquiry until after the 4 November 2026 local government elections and even to beyond the ANC’s December 2027 national elective conference where the party will elect a new party president. In such a scenario, Ramaphosa would then resign as South African president, following the ANC’s December 2027 elective conference and the