Calls for President Cyril Ramaphosa to face impeachment proceedings intensified on Friday afternoon, after opposition parties seized on the findings of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) report into the Phala Phala scandal, arguing it strengthens the case for accountability at the highest level of the state.

In a formal submission to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Vuyo Zungula, leader of the African Transformation Movement (ATM), requested the immediate initiation of proceedings in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution — the mechanism that allows Parliament to remove a sitting president.

Zungula’s request is grounded in what he describes as a growing body of corroborated evidence, combining the IPID report with the findings of the 2022 Section 89 Independent Panel, which previously found prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated the Constitution.

“The IPID report materially strengthens and deepens the earlier findings,” Zungula said in his letter, arguing that the developments point to more than an isolated lapse, but rather a pattern of conduct involving the use of state machinery to protect private interests linked to the President.

The IPID investigation centres on the 2020 burglary at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm, where a large sum of foreign currency, reported to be around $580 000, was stolen. According to the report, senior members of the South African Police Service’s Presidential Protection Unit failed to follow proper legal processes after the theft.

Instead of opening a formal case, the officials allegedly conducted an irregular investigation, using state resources to trace suspects and recover the money. The report further raises concerns about unlawful conduct, including the concealment of a crime, the abuse of police authority, and actions that may amount to kidnapping and assault.

Zungula’s submission places particular emphasis on a sworn affidavit by Major-General Wally Rhoode, head of the Presidential Protection Unit, which he argues links the President directly to the handling of the matter.

In the affidavit, Rhoode states that Ramaphosa instructed him to “attend to the matter and report back”. According to the ATM, this suggests that the subsequent actions, carried out outside formal policing channels, may have occurred under presidential direction.

“This is not simply about the conduct of police officials,” Zungula argues. “It is about whether the authority of the Presidency was invoked in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution.”

The ATM further contends that the failure to report the theft through official channels may constitute a breach of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act (PRECCA), which requires the reporting of crimes involving amounts exceeding R100 000.

It argues that the handling of the matter through parallel processes, rather than through the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation, points to a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny.

On Friday afternoon, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) echoed these concerns, describing the IPID findings as confirmation of a “systematic cover-up”.

EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said the report exposes “a coordinated abuse of state power to conceal criminal conduct linked to Cyril Ramaphosa”.

According to the EFF, police officials who were aware of the theft failed to open a case and instead pursued suspects through unlawful means, including detentions and interrogations conducted outside legal frameworks.

The party also raised concerns about cross-border activities involving Namibian authorities, as well as the alleged misuse of public funds in what it describes as a private recovery operation for the President’s undeclared foreign currency.

“It is now clear that this is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader pattern of concealment and evasion of accountability,” Thambo said.

The EFF has called for criminal investigations into all those implicated in the IPID report, including the President, and reiterated its position that Ramaphosa has “a case to answer”.

The developments place renewed focus on Parliament’s constitutional obligations. Section 89 of the Constitution provides that a president may be removed for serious violations of the Constitution or the law, serious misconduct, or inability to perform the functions of office.

Previous rulings by the Constitutional Court have underscored the duty of the National Assembly to hold the President accountable, emphasising that Members of Parliament must act independently and in the public interest.

Zungula warned that failure to act in the face of the latest findings would undermine the credibility of Parliament and weaken constitutional oversight.

“The continued inaction risks reducing Section 89 to a hollow provision,” he said, adding that it would send a message that the abuse of state power can occur without consequence.

For Ramaphosa, the renewed calls for impeachment represent a significant political challenge, particularly as they draw on multiple sources of evidence that opposition parties argue are mutually reinforcing.

While the President has previously denied wrongdoing in relation to the Phala Phala matter, maintaining that he acted within the law, the IPID report and the affidavit evidence cited by the ATM are likely to intensify scrutiny in the days ahead.

Parliament is now expected to consider whether to initiate the preliminary process outlined in its rules, which would involve appointing an independent panel to assess the available evidence before any decision on impeachment proceedings is made.

As pressure mounts from opposition benches, the coming days are likely to test not only the strength of the allegations, but also the willingness of Parliament to act on them.