EFF Pushes for Impeachment of Ramaphosa Amid Phala Phala Scandal
The battle over South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s alleged misconduct in the “Farmgate” scandal continues as opposition parties, led by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), seek to revive impeachment proceedings. The Constitutional Court heard arguments on November 26, 2024, over whether Parliament’s rejection of a motion to proceed with impeachment was unconstitutional. At the heart of the case is the alleged cover-up of a 2020 burglary at Ramaphosa’s private farm, where a large sum of undeclared foreign currency was stolen.
The controversy began when more than half a million dollars in cash was discovered hidden at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm in Limpopo, a discovery that was kept secret for years. Critics, led by the EFF and the African Transformation Movement (ATM), argue that Ramaphosa failed to report the theft and mishandled the situation, raising questions about the legitimacy of the funds. The EFF, who has been vocal about Ramaphosa’s alleged corruption, believes that the case warrants further investigation and impeachment.
In 2022, an independent parliamentary panel found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated constitutional provisions, but the ANC-dominated National Assembly rejected the motion to proceed with impeachment. The EFF contends that Parliament mishandled the matter and failed in its constitutional duty to hold the president accountable. They argue that the majority in Parliament used its power to protect the president, with EFF leader Julius Malema accusing ANC members of voting against impeachment due to political allegiance rather than constitutional duty.
During Tuesday’s court proceedings, the EFF’s legal team argued that Parliament’s actions were unconstitutional. Advocate Kameel Premhid, representing the EFF, likened the situation to former President Jacob Zuma’s Nkandla scandal, noting that it was “problematic” for a sitting president to have millions of dollars hidden in couches at his farm. However, Ramaphosa’s legal team countered that there was insufficient evidence to warrant impeachment, with lawyer Peter Harris claiming that the independent panel had failed to assess whether there was deliberate misconduct by the president.
The ATM’s advocate, Anton Katz, expressed his disbelief over the location of the stolen money, emphasizing the need for an explanation. Justice Rammaka Mathopo questioned whether Ramaphosa was even aware of why the money was stored in such a manner, noting that Ramaphosa’s staff had provided an explanation after the fact.
Despite the intense courtroom exchange, judgment has been reserved. Malema remains confident that the EFF will prevail and force Ramaphosa’s impeachment. “We are going to win this case,” he assured the crowds of supporters gathered outside the Constitutional Court.
As the Constitutional Court deliberates, the future of Ramaphosa’s presidency hangs in the balance. With impeachment proceedings on hold, the political landscape is set for further confrontation. The EFF, backed by the ATM, believes that the ruling ANC’s actions have obstructed justice and accountability, while Ramaphosa’s defenders argue that the accusations lack solid legal grounds. The court’s upcoming judgment will determine whether the path to impeachment can be revived, marking a pivotal moment in South African politics.
