Build One South Africa (BOSA) leader Mmusi Maimane has called for President Cyril Ramaphosa to personally finance his legal challenge against the independent Phala Phala panel report, arguing that public funds should not cover litigation stemming from the President’s private affairs.
Ramaphosa recently submitted court papers to the Western Cape High Court seeking to review and set aside the findings of the independent panel that investigated incidents at his Phala Phala farm. While Maimane acknowledged the President’s constitutional entitlement to pursue legal recourse, he stressed that the dispute centers on personal matters tied to private property, not official presidential duties.
Maimane cautioned that the case could generate significant costs for South African taxpayers, particularly given its likely progression through multiple judicial tiers: the High Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, and potentially the Constitutional Court—regardless of interim rulings. He pointed to former President Jacob Zuma’s legal proceedings, which he noted incurred state expenses nearing 30 million rand, as a cautionary precedent.
“The taxpayer cannot be financing across all of those actors to litigate against each other on a matter that in my humble opinion, if the president’s action which is to review is private,” Maimane stated. He maintained that Parliament remains the constitutionally appropriate venue for holding the President accountable. “What the public are asking for is for the president to come to parliament as a standard for him to account there. That’s where the president accounts.”
Maimane drew a clear line between institutional and personal legal actions. Should Parliament initiate litigation to advance an impeachment process in pursuit of public accountability, he conceded that taxpayer funding would be justified. However, when an individual officeholder—whether an MP, minister, or the President—chooses to litigate against the state over personal matters, the associated costs should be borne personally unless a court rules otherwise.
He cited previous cases where government ministers received personal cost orders following litigation related to their official conduct, reinforcing his view that accountability mechanisms belong in parliamentary processes, not judicial ones. “Accountability cannot be sought in the courts. South Africa is politicizing its courts,” Maimane warned.
Although Ramaphosa’s court application seeks, among other outcomes, to pause the parliamentary impeachment committee’s proceedings, Maimane clarified that the current filing does not function as an urgent interdict. He reiterated that Parliament’s central inquiry should focus on whether the President has upheld his constitutional oath to defend the laws of the Republic—a question he believes should be resolved through political accountability rather than protracted personal litigation.
Maimane concluded that, irrespective of legal outcomes, South Africans deserve assurance regarding whether the President believes his conduct has remained consistent with all laws of the Republic—a determination he argued belongs in the parliamentary arena, not funded by the public purse through extended court battles over private matters.