WATCH LIVE as Gambakwe unpacks why South Africa President, Cyril Ramaphosa will step down:

Case Analysis: Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others [2026] ZACC 17

1. Timeline of the Case

Date	Event
9 February 2020	Burglary at President Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm; foreign currency stolen
1 June 2022	Former Correctional Services Commissioner Arthur Fraser laid criminal charges against the President
18 July 2022	ATM President Vuyolwethu Zungula submitted impeachment motion to the Speaker under section 89(1) of the Constitution
14 September 2022	Speaker appointed the Independent Panel (retired Chief Justice Ngcobo, retired Judge Masipa, Adv Mahlape Sello SC)
19 October 2022	Speaker formally referred the motion to the Panel
30 November 2022	Panel submitted its Report finding the President prima facie may have violated the Constitution
5 December 2022	President launched application to review and set aside the Report
13 December 2022	National Assembly voted 214 to 149 AGAINST proceeding with section 89 inquiry
10 January 2023	EFF sought direct access to Constitutional Court (dismissed 1 March 2023)
13 February 2024	EFF launched this application
26 November 2024	Case heard by Constitutional Court
8 May 2026	Judgment delivered

2. The Applicants

Applicant	Name
First Applicant	Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) – registered political party represented in the National Assembly
Second Applicant	African Transformation Movement (ATM) – political party represented in the National Assembly (joined by intervention)

3. The Respondents

Respondent	Name
First Respondent	Speaker of the National Assembly
Second Respondent	National Assembly
Third Respondent	President of the Republic of South Africa (Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa)
Fourth Respondent	African National Congress (ANC)
Fifth to Sixteenth Respondents	All other political parties represented in the National Assembly (did not oppose the application)

4. The Actual Judgment and Order

Core Findings (by majority):

1. Rule 129I of the National Assembly Rules is declared unconstitutional and invalid – it allows the National Assembly to block impeachment proceedings even when the Independent Panel finds sufficient evidence against the President.
2. The National Assembly vote of 13 December 2022 is declared invalid – the vote that declined to refer the Panel’s Report to an Impeachment Committee was inconsistent with the Constitution.
3. The Panel’s Report must be referred to the Impeachment Committee for further investigation.

The Full Order:

1. This Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the application with respect to the challenge to rule 129I of the Ninth Edition of the Rules of the National Assembly (NA Rules).
2. It is declared that rule 129I is inconsistent with the Constitution, invalid and set aside.
3. Pending any amendment, rule 129I shall read as follows (struck out words removed, underlined words inserted):

“Rule 129I Consideration and referral of panel report

(1) Once the panel has reported the Speaker must schedule the report for consideration by the Assembly, with due urgency, given the programme of the Assembly inform the Assembly of the report.

(2) The President must be informed of the scheduling and any decision on provided with a copy of the report forthwith.

(3) In the event the Assembly panel resolves concludes that a Section 89(1) enquiry be proceeded with sufficient evidence exists as contemplated in Rule 129G, the matter must be referred to the Impeachment Committee established by this rule (or by the National Assembly Rules) for that purpose.

(4) In the event the panel concludes that sufficient evidence does not exist as contemplated in Rule 129G, the Speaker must schedule the report for consideration by the Assembly; and in the event the Assembly nonetheless resolves that a Section 89(1) enquiry be proceeded with, the matter must be referred to the Impeachment Committee established by this rule (or by the National Assembly Rules) for that purpose.”

4. The severance and reading-in in paragraph 3 shall apply subject to any amendment by the National Assembly.
5. Pending any amendment of the NA Rules, other affected rules shall be read consistently with paragraph 3.
6. It is declared that the vote of the National Assembly taken on 13 December 2022, declining to refer the Report of the Independent Panel to an Impeachment Committee, is inconsistent with the Constitution, invalid and set aside.
7. The Report of the Independent Panel is referred to the Impeachment Committee established in terms of the NA Rules.
8. The first to fourth respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the first applicant (EFF), including costs of two counsel where applicable.

5. Other Important Details

The Three Separate Judgments

The Court was split into three judgments, but the final order was supported by a majority:

Judge	Concurring Judges	Main Findings
Maya CJ (first judgment)	Madlanga ADCJ, Rogers J, Theron J	Rule 129I unconstitutional; NA vote invalid; exclusive jurisdiction over both challenges
Kollapen J (second judgment)	Mathopo J, Seegobin AJ, Tshiqi J	Rule 129I is constitutional; no exclusive jurisdiction over vote challenge; would have dismissed that part
Majiedt J (third judgment)	Mhlantla J, Tolmay AJ	Rule 129I unconstitutional (for different reasons); NA vote invalid

Key Points About the Phala Phala Incident

• The Panel found the President prima facie may have committed:
  • Serious violation of section 96(2)(a) of the Constitution
  • Serious violation of PRECCA (failure to report corrupt transactions)
  • Serious misconduct under section 96(2)(b) of the Constitution
• The money (USD 580,000 according to the President) was from selling 20 buffalo
• The burglary was not reported to regular police but investigated by a team led by Major General Rhoode from the Presidential Protection Unit
• The President sought assistance from the Namibian President to apprehend suspects

What Happens Next

1. The Impeachment Committee must now investigate the Panel’s Report
2. The National Assembly can amend Rule 129I as it sees fit (subject to constitutional limits)
3. Only after the Impeachment Committee completes its work would the National Assembly vote on whether to actually remove the President (requiring a two-thirds majority)

Important Legal Principles Established

• The National Assembly cannot block impeachment proceedings at a preliminary stage when sufficient evidence exists
• Section 89 of the Constitution carries implied obligations – to put in place effective mechanisms and to take appropriate action to hold the President accountable
• A rule that allows a majority party to protect a President from facing an impeachment inquiry is unconstitutional
• The Court used a “reading-in” remedy to fix the defective rule while allowing Parliament to later amend it