The legal battle over President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm saga has shifted to a central question before the Western Cape High Court: whether the evidence against him was strong enough to justify subjecting him to a parliamentary impeachment process.
Ramaphosa’s legal team is challenging the findings of an independent panel appointed by Parliament in 2022, arguing that the panel failed to apply the correct standard when assessing whether the President had a case to answer.
Advocate Wim Trengove, representing Ramaphosa, told the court that the issue was not simply whether allegations had been made against the President, but whether there was sufficient evidence to show that he had acted deliberately and in bad faith following the theft of US dollars from his Limpopo farm in 2020.
The panel’s report ultimately paved the way for a Section 89 inquiry into Ramaphosa’s conduct.
Trengove argued that the panel had placed too much emphasis on allegations brought forward by former spy chief Arthur Fraser, who first made the farm theft public, without adequately testing those claims against Ramaphosa’s account of events.
He maintained that the panel had effectively concluded that a prima facie case existed because allegations had been made, rather than properly weighing the evidence for and against the President.
The legal challenge therefore raises broader questions about the evidentiary threshold that should apply when Parliament considers whether a sitting president may have committed serious misconduct warranting impeachment proceedings.
Ramaphosa has asked the court to review and set aside the panel’s report, which remains the foundation for the Section 89 parliamentary inquiry.
The outcome of the court proceedings could determine whether the impeachment process continues on its current footing or whether Parliament will be required to reconsider the findings that initiated it.
The hearing is continuing.