JOHANNESBURG – South African President Cyril Ramaphosa is facing one of the most significant challenges to his presidency after the Constitutional Court issued a landmark ruling on May 8, 2026. The nation's highest court declared that Parliament acted unconstitutionally in 2022 when it blocked a report that could have led to his impeachment, effectively reopening the path for formal removal proceedings.

The case centers on the "Phala Phala" scandal, which involves the theft of an estimated $580,000 in cash from the President’s private game farm in 2020. The controversy erupted when it was revealed the money was hidden inside a sofa. While Ramaphosa has consistently maintained the funds were proceeds from a legitimate sale of buffalo, critics have questioned why the foreign currency was not properly declared and why the theft was not reported through official police channels.

In late 2022, an independent panel led by a former Chief Justice found prima facie evidence that the President may have committed a serious violation of the Constitution. However, the African National Congress (ANC)—which held a majority at the time—voted in the National Assembly to reject the report, shielding Ramaphosa from an impeachment committee.

Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, delivering the court's judgment, stated that the National Assembly’s vote was "inconsistent with the Constitution, invalid, and is set aside." The court has now ordered the report to be referred to an impeachment committee for a full, transparent investigation.

The timing of this ruling is particularly precarious for Ramaphosa. Following the 2024 general elections, the ANC lost its absolute majority and currently leads a fragile Government of National Unity (GNU). Opposition parties, led by Julius Malema of the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), have wasted no time in calling for the President’s immediate resignation. "The ANC must choose between South Africa or Ramaphosa," Malema declared following the verdict.

In response, the Presidency issued a statement affirming that Ramaphosa "respects the judgment" and maintains his commitment to the rule of law. While previous probes by the South African Reserve Bank and the Public Protector had cleared him of certain charges, this parliamentary inquiry carries much higher political stakes. If the committee finds evidence of gross misconduct, it could lead to a vote that requires a two-thirds majority to remove him—a difficult but no longer impossible threshold given the current fragmented state of South African politics.