Legal analysts say President Cyril Ramaphosa’s court challenge to the independent panel report on the Phala Phala affair has a credible legal basis, but they caution that it is still too early to predict whether he will succeed or whether parliament’s impeachment process could be derailed.
Ramaphosa has taken the Western Cape High Court to review and set aside the report produced by the panel chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo. The report is central to the political and legal pressure facing the president over the 2020 theft of about $538,000 from a couch at his Phala Phala game farm. Ramaphosa argues that the panel exceeded its mandate and used the wrong legal standard when assessing whether he may have breached the constitution and the law.
The president’s main complaint is that the panel found there was prima facie information suggesting he “may have committed serious violations” of the constitution, while parliament’s rules, in his view, required the panel to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to show that he committed a serious violation or serious misconduct. He says this difference in wording matters and could invalidate the report.
University of Cape Town public law associate professor Richard Calland said Ramaphosa’s grounds for review appear to have merit. He said the court will need to decide how the panel should have carried out its constitutional role under the National Assembly’s rules. Calland noted that the phrase “whether sufficient evidence exists” may place a heavy burden on the panel, because it could imply a deeper scrutiny of the facts than the panel was actually able to conduct. In his view, a prima facie test may have been more suitable, leaving a fuller inquiry to the impeachment committee.
Calland added that all four main grounds raised in Ramaphosa’s application appear to have merit, though the strength of the case will only become clearer once the opposing arguments are heard.
University of Pretoria public law professor Koos Malan offered a different perspective. He said the panel may have been right to apply a prima facie standard, especially given that parliament gave it only 30 days to complete its work. Malan argued that the panel was never meant to act like a court and could not be expected to test evidence through witness hearings and cross-examination in the same way as a trial. He said the panel’s task was only to decide whether there was enough to suggest the president had a case to answer, not to make a final finding on guilt or liability.
Malan said the wording in parliament’s rules is open to interpretation and that the panel’s approach may still be constitutionally defensible. He described the possible outcome of the review application as finely balanced, saying the chances of it failing are as strong as the chances of it succeeding.
The case now raises a broader legal question about the standard of proof required from a parliamentary panel operating under tight deadlines and limited powers, and whether its report can survive judicial review.
