President Cyril Ramaphosa has filed a new application seeking judicial review of the 2022 Section 89 independent panel report on the Phala Phala matter, aiming to have the findings set aside. The legal move coincides with Parliament’s preparations to form a 31-member committee tasked with considering impeachment proceedings. The President has warned that advancing the process at this stage would be a “travesty” and has indicated he will seek an urgent court interdict should Parliament decline to pause its work.
Advocate Modidima Mannya, offering legal perspective on the development, stated that within South Africa’s constitutional framework, the President holds the same entitlement as any individual or political entity to pursue legal remedies. “It does not deal with whether he’s guilty or he’s not guilty but it’s a process matter,” Mannya observed.
The President’s application outlines three core grounds for review: alleged errors in factual determinations, mistakes in legal interpretation, and the contention that the panel exceeded or misinterpreted its terms of reference. A pivotal legal question centers on the evidentiary standard applied by the panel. Ramaphosa’s legal representatives argue the panel adopted a prima facie threshold rather than establishing bad faith—a distinction the judiciary must now interpret in light of Section 89 of the Constitution, which sets the framework for presidential removal.
Additionally, the President alleges the panel relied on unprocessed raw information and hearsay evidence, which is typically excluded from legal proceedings barring exceptional justification. Mannya explained that the court’s function would not involve re-evaluating evidence admissibility from scratch, but rather determining whether the panel applied correct legal standards in its evidentiary rulings. The submission by Arthur Fraser was highlighted in the President’s filings as an instance of potentially unverified material.
If the court determines the panel admitted inadmissible evidence or operated outside its mandate, the credibility of the report could be significantly weakened. Mannya stressed, however, that the panel’s findings did not constitute a determination of guilt, but rather identified sufficient grounds for the President to respond—a process Ramaphosa undertook both before Parliament and the panel itself.
This latest legal step follows a Constitutional Court ruling that reactivated the impeachment pathway after an earlier National Assembly vote against proceeding had rendered a prior review application moot. “When the National Assembly voted not to proceed with the process, it killed the whole process including the report itself,” Mannya explained. “The current situation is that based on the constitutional court judgment, the process has been revived and when the process gets revived, then the live dispute comes back to life as well.”
In support of his position, President Ramaphosa cites investigative outcomes from the South African Revenue Service (SARS), the Reserve Bank, and the Public Protector. Mannya acknowledged these documents represent pertinent material the President may submit to highlight potential inconsistencies with the panel’s conclusions, though their evidentiary weight remains subject to judicial assessment.
Should the High Court reject the review application, the President retains the constitutional right to pursue an appeal. Mannya referenced former President Jacob Zuma’s continued legal actions concerning the Zondo Commission as a comparable example, emphasizing that access to judicial recourse is a protected right irrespective of one’s official status.
Political considerations also factor prominently: securing impeachment in the National Assembly demands a two-thirds majority. Mannya noted that even if the impeachment committee advances and issues a recommendation, parliamentary arithmetic could still prevent the matter from progressing to a final vote.
Advocate Mannya proposed a pragmatic approach: an expedited court review paired with a temporary suspension of the impeachment committee’s work. He underscored the singular position of the head of state and the institutional risks posed by protracted legal uncertainty. The Western Cape High Court now faces the task of determining whether the panel’s methodology, factual assessments, and legal interpretations satisfy constitutional and procedural standards.
