The Western Cape Division of the High Court granted President Cyril Ramaphosa an interim interdict on July 24, 2026, blocking Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee from holding public hearings. The ruling pauses the inquiry into the Phala Phala farm scandal pending a judicial review of the independent panel report that triggered the proceedings.
President Cyril Ramaphosa successfully petitioned the court to stop a public impeachment process that sought to probe his conduct regarding the 2020 theft of foreign currency from his game farm in Limpopo. The court’s decision, delivered by Judge Andre le Grange, ensures that the parliamentary inquiry cannot proceed to its public phase until the legal validity of the underlying evidence is determined.
The Split Judgment of the Western Cape High Court
The ruling was not unanimous. Judge Andre le Grange noted that the court delivered three separate judgments on the matter. The first judgment, authored by Judge Matthew Francis, concluded that the president had not made a case for an interim interdict and proposed that the application be dismissed. Judge Francis argued that Ramaphosa would not suffer irreparable harm, noting that the inquiry process is protective at every stage, allowing the president to dispute evidence with legal representation.
However, the majority view prevailed. Judges le Grange and Diane Davis granted the interim interdict for a limited duration. The court ordered that National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza and the impeachment committee chair, Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana, are interdicted from proceeding with a public impeachment proceeding pending the determination of the review application.
Phala Phala Allegations and the Section 89 Panel
The legal battle centers on a 2022 report by a Section 89 independent panel led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo. That panel found that Ramaphosa had a case to answer regarding the theft of $580,000 in cash which had been hidden in a sofa at his Phala Phala game farm.
Ramaphosa has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and is seeking to overturn the panel’s findings. His legal team, led by Advocate Wim Trengove, argued that subjecting the president to a public inquiry based on a flawed report would be a “humiliation” from which he could not recover, causing significant reputational harm if the report were later found invalid.
Parliamentary Response and Preparatory Work
While public hearings are frozen, the impeachment committee is not entirely dormant. Chairperson Makashule Gana clarified that the court order specifically targets the public phase of the inquiry. After consulting with Parliament’s legal unit, Gana stated that the committee will continue with internal preparations.
The preparatory work of the impeachment committee will continue. They indicated to me that the only part that has been interdicted is holding the public hearings on this matter pending the review application by President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Makashule Gana, Chairperson of Parliament’s Impeachment Committee
Political Fallout and Constitutional Stakes
The ruling has sparked a sharp divide across South Africa’s political spectrum. The ANC welcomed the decision, claiming it vindicates its conviction regarding equality before the law and removes legal hurdles for the judicial review.
Opposition parties, including the EFF, MK, and UAT, fought the interdict, arguing that the court was cutting into the lane of Parliament
and usurping legislative powers.
Timeline for Judicial Review
The current stay is temporary. The High Court is scheduled to hear the case regarding the review of the Section 89 panel report from September 2 to September 4, 2026. The outcome of this review will determine whether the foundation of the impeachment process is legally sound.
For now, the presidency maintains that the president remains fully committed to cooperating with lawful accountability mechanisms, while the impeachment committee continues to build the framework for a process that may or may not ever reach the public eye.
Worth a look
