South Africa’s National Assembly voted late Tuesday to adopt new rules governing the Section 89 impeachment inquiry process against President Cyril Ramaphosa \u2014 rules the Constitutional Court had already declared the old ones unconstitutional. This isn’t just a legal technicality. This is a live test of whether African parliaments can hold their presidents accountable when it actually matters.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
In May 2025, South Africa’s Constitutional Court ruled that Parliament’s handling of the Phala Phala scandal<\/strong> was unconstitutional. The court threw out the National Assembly’s December 2022 decision \u2014 a decision that had conveniently buried a damning independent panel report finding that Ramaphosa may have breached the Constitution<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n That report concerns a 2020 incident in which US dollars were stolen from Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm<\/strong> \u2014 money that raises serious questions about undisclosed foreign currency and how the theft was handled. Ramaphosa allegedly concealed the theft rather than report it. The independent panel said this could amount to a serious constitutional violation.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Parliament sat on this for over two years. The court had to force their hand.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Tuesday’s vote adopted amended rules to replace the unconstitutional Rule 129I<\/strong>, implementing the Constitutional Court’s directions. The changes set the framework for a 31-member Impeachment Committee<\/strong> to now begin its actual work.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n But the debate was not clean. Political parties clashed over one critical question: should MPs serving on the impeachment committee meet a “fit and proper” standard<\/strong>?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Secretary to the National Assembly, Masibulele Xaso<\/strong>, made it plain: party representatives choose who sits on the committee. Not the Speaker. Not the House. The parties.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Ramaphosa has not accepted this process quietly. He has rushed to the Western Cape High Court<\/strong> seeking an urgent interdict to halt the impeachment inquiry while he separately challenges the independent panel’s report in a review application.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n In plain terms: the President is asking a court to stop Parliament from doing its constitutional job while he argues the evidence against him shouldn’t exist.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The interdict hearing is scheduled for July 15 and 16<\/strong>. Parties have until July 10<\/strong> to nominate senior counsel to lead evidence before the Impeachment Committee.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Impeachment Committee will investigate the charges, establish their veracity, and make a recommendation to the full National Assembly. If the committee recommends removal, the House votes. Ramaphosa needs two-thirds of the Assembly to vote against him to be removed<\/strong> \u2014 a high bar, and one that makes the ANC’s position inside the committee politically decisive.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Legal advisers clarified one important point: a Section 89 charge must relate to conduct personally performed by the President<\/strong>. But if Ramaphosa issued instructions that themselves constituted serious misconduct or a constitutional violation, those instructions count as personal conduct. That closes a potential escape route.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Here is what young, politically aware Africans should take from this: accountability mechanisms only work if institutions enforce them<\/strong>. South Africa’s Constitutional Court had to drag Parliament back to its constitutional duty two years after it tried to bury this case.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n MK Party MP Mzwanele Manyi<\/strong> put it bluntly during Tuesday’s debate \u2014 the delays have damaged public trust<\/strong> in Parliament as an institution. He’s right. When accountability processes move at the speed of political convenience, citizens lose faith that the system works for them at all.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Impeachment Committee chairperson Makashule Gana<\/strong> defended the process, insisting the committee supports the new rules. DA Chief Whip Glynnis Breytenbach<\/strong> called the amendments “fair, certain, and in line with the Constitution.”<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The words sound right. Now watch what they do with them.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" South Africa’s Parliament Just Changed the Rules on Presidential Impeachment \u2014 Here’s Why Every Young African Should Be Paying Attention South Africa’s National Assembly voted late Tuesday to adopt new rules governing the Section 89 impeachment inquiry process against President Cyril Ramaphosa \u2014 rules the Constitutional Court had already declared the old ones unconstitutional. This […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3986,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[33,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3987","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-trending","category-world"],"blocksy_meta":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe New Rules \u2014 And the Fight Behind Them<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Ramaphosa Is Fighting Back \u2014 In Court<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
What Removal Actually Requires<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n
Why This Matters Beyond South Africa<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n