CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — The Western Cape High Court has raised critical questions regarding whether tangible evidence directly links President Cyril Ramaphosa to the disputed Phala Phala transaction, a central issue in the ongoing impeachment proceedings. During the second day of hearings, Judge Mark Sher scrutinized the apparent lack of material proof showing the president personally conducted or directly benefited from the alleged paid work at the center of the constitutional dispute.
The judicial scrutiny followed arguments presented by the African Transformative Movement’s (ATM) legal representative, Adv. Kessler Perumalsamy, who debated whether the specific source of the foreign currency was relevant to the definition of “paid work.” Judge Sher challenged this focus, noting that any transaction conducted by the farm—even involving a single animal and no foreign currency—would constitute paid work. The judge highlighted that this aligns with President Ramaphosa’s own statements at the ANC Limpopo Congress, where he declared, “I’m a farmer. I trade in animals,” which forms the basis of the charge.
A significant portion of the hearing centered on the National Assembly’s impeachment rules. The bench noted that these rules traditionally stipulate that conduct warranting impeachment must be conducted by the president in person. This raised questions about how to link the president to the actions of his associates, such as his legal adviser at the time, Dr. Bejani Chauke, and the head of the presidential protection unit, General Wally Rhoode. Both officials reportedly traveled to Namibia, with General Rhoode stating he traveled at the behest of the president.
Opposition parties countered this interpretation, arguing that a president can legally act through another person, meaning the impeachable conduct does not have to be executed by the president physically. This debate occurs against the backdrop of the Constitutional Court’s prior order directing Parliament to remedy defects in rule 129(i). In response, members of Parliament have been reviewing draft terms of reference to amend the rules, explicitly recognizing that a president can issue instructions to others, thereby making proxy actions attributable to the executive.
The hearings also revisited the findings of the Section 89 independent panel, which investigated a large sum of foreign currency discovered on the Phala Phala farm in 2020. The panel’s report noted that President Ramaphosa acknowledged being the sole member of a closed corporation that owned the farm. Despite his characterization of the farm as a family business, his direction and instruction of financial matters could constitute a violation of Section 96 of the Constitution, which prohibits members of the executive from undertaking paid work.
President Ramaphosa previously informed the Section 89 panel that the money in question was a transfer received by the farm manager, Mr. Ndlovu, who was present at the time. However, Judge Sher emphasized that there remains no direct evidence proving the president personally gave the instruction to receive the funds or that he personally received any money. Furthermore, the president has maintained that the activities on the Phala Phala farm did not constitute “paid work” for which he was compensated.
The high-stakes hearings are scheduled to conclude tomorrow, marking the final day of arguments. Proceedings will resume at 9:30 AM, with the MK party and the ATM expected to present their cases through their respective legal counsel. Following their submissions, the president’s legal team will be granted an opportunity to respond.
Once all arguments are heard, the court is expected to reserve its judgment. This ruling will carry profound political implications, as it will ultimately determine whether the impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa is legally permitted to proceed.
