The EFF and MKP have asked Parliament to urgently establish an impeachment committee against President Cyril Ramaphosa.

• The EFF has given Speaker Thoko Didiza 48 hours to form an impeachment committee against President Cyril Ramaphosa following a Constitutional Court ruling.
• The court found the National Assembly’s rejection of a Section 89 panel report unconstitutional, prompting the EFF and MK Party to demand urgent action.
• EFF leader Julius Malema vowed to provide evidence and legal resources, while Parliament stated it would review the judgment’s implications.

The EFF has given National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza 48 hours to constitute an impeachment committee against President Cyril Ramaphosa or face another legal challenge.

On Friday, the Constitutional Court ruled that the decision by the National Assembly not to adopt a Section 89 panel report that found Ramaphosa had a case to answer was unconstitutional and set it aside.

The EFF took the matter to court.

The court delivered its Phala Phala ruling, finding that Parliament’s rules must be effective in holding the president accountable and effectively restarting an impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa.

In June 2022, Arthur Fraser, then director-general at the State Security Agency, opened a kidnapping and money-laundering case against Ramaphosa, Presidential Protection Unit head Major-General Wally Rhoode, and Crime Intelligence members for allegedly concealing a February 2020 burglary in which foreign currency was stuffed into a Phala Phala couch.

Addressing the media on Friday, shortly after Chief Justice Mandisa Maya handed down the ruling, EFF leader Julius Malema said the party’s chief whip, Nontando Nolutshungu, “should have written to the Speaker now to establish the impeachment process immediately”.

“We cannot wait any longer; we have been waiting for too long now. The impeachment process must kick in with immediate effect, and that’s what we are going to demand,” said Malema.

The EFF wasted no time and has written to Didiza, in a letter signed by Nolutshungu, asking her to initiate the necessary process to refer the matter to the Section 89 impeachment committee.

Nolutshungu wrote:

“Failure to provide such clarity will leave the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) with no option but to reserve its rights to approach the courts for appropriate relief to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the judgment of the Constitutional Court,” reads the letter.

Malema told the media outside the Constitutional Court that Didiza must know that whatever decision she takes is for the country, not for individuals.

READ | ConCourt places Ramaphosa under parliamentary investigation over Phala Phala

“We want the evidence of the 20 buffaloes that left this country, we want evidence of the men who came to buy buffaloes when entering the country and leaving the country,” said Malema.

He added that the EFF would assemble a “big legal team” to support the party before the impeachment committee.

“We will put our own resources to make sure that EFF comes out with real evidence to investigate this matter thoroughly,” he said.

Malema later told party supporters that he would be sitting on the committee.

Meanwhile, the MK Party (MKP) has also written to Didiza, asking her to move swiftly so the National Assembly can establish the impeachment committee.

In the letter, MKP chief whip Mmabatho Mokoena-Zondi said, following the Constitutional Court ruling, the party called on Didiza’s office to “immediately initiate all necessary parliamentary processes”.

Mokoena-Zondi said the committee must begin its work urgently, without further delay.

“Any unnecessary delay in constituting the committee would undermine Parliament’s constitutional responsibilities, weaken public confidence in democratic oversight mechanisms, and potentially amount to a further failure to comply with the Constitutional Court’s binding directive,” she wrote.

Meanwhile, in a short statement on Friday, National Assembly spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said Parliament had noted the judgment and would study it and consider its implications for Parliament’s procedures.