The Constitutional Court of South Africa has confirmed it will release its long-awaited judgment in the politically charged Phala Phala matter within weeks, bringing renewed focus to one of South Africa’s most contentious legal and political sagas.
The confirmation on Wednesday follows sustained pressure from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), which earlier on the day staged a picket outside Constitution Hill, where the apex court sits. The party has been demanding the immediate release of the judgment, arguing that the delay—now stretching over a year and five months—undermines accountability and public trust.
In a formal letter addressed to EFF leader Julius Malema and legal representatives in the matter, the court confirmed that the judgment is at an “advanced stage” and will be handed down within a month. The correspondence, issued by the Chief Registrar on behalf of the Chief Justice, effectively sets a clear expectation that the ruling is imminent.
The case, Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 35/24), centres on the EFF’s bid to revive parliamentary processes related to the Phala Phala scandal. At the heart of the dispute is whether the National Assembly of South Africa fulfilled its constitutional duty to hold the executive accountable.
A judgment with major implications
The impending ruling is expected to have far-reaching political and constitutional consequences. Should the court find in favour of the EFF, Parliament could be compelled to revisit its handling of the matter, potentially reopening accountability processes linked to President Cyril Ramaphosa. A different outcome, however, may affirm Parliament’s previous decisions and reinforce its discretion in oversight matters.
The EFF has framed the case as a critical test of constitutional accountability, insisting that delays in delivering the judgment weaken democratic institutions. Wednesday’s protest was part of a broader campaign by the party to keep public attention fixed on the issue.
Understanding the Phala Phala scandal
The Phala Phala controversy stems from a 2020 burglary at President Ramaphosa’s private game farm in Limpopo, where a significant amount of foreign currency was allegedly stolen. The incident only became public in 2022, sparking widespread scrutiny and political fallout.
Central to the controversy are questions about the origin of the funds, whether they were properly declared, and how the theft was handled. Critics, including the EFF, have raised concerns about possible breaches of financial and constitutional laws. The presidency has consistently maintained that the money was derived from a legitimate game sale and that no laws were broken.
The matter escalated further due to allegations that the theft was not reported through standard law enforcement channels, but instead handled through alternative means—raising concerns about transparency and the rule of law.
Why the case reached the apex court
The dispute eventually made its way to the Constitutional Court after disagreements over Parliament’s response to the scandal. An independent panel had previously found that there may have been sufficient grounds to consider impeachment proceedings. However, the National Assembly did not proceed in the manner sought by opposition parties.
The EFF then turned to the courts, arguing that the Speaker and other respondents failed to uphold their constitutional obligations. The party is seeking a ruling that could effectively reopen the matter within Parliament.
Given the constitutional questions involved—including the limits of parliamentary oversight and the accountability of the executive—the case falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the apex court.
Countdown to a decisive ruling
With the court now confirming that the judgment will be delivered soon, anticipation is mounting across political and legal circles. The ruling is expected to clarify key constitutional principles and could reshape the balance between Parliament and the presidency.
For now, all eyes remain on the Constitutional Court as it prepares to hand down a decision that could mark a turning point in South Africa’s ongoing debate over accountability, transparency, and the rule of law.
