The Constitutional Court has reopened the impeachment route Parliament tried to bury in 2022. Now South Africa is asking the question many thought was gone forever: Could Cyril Ramaphosa actually lose power over Phala Phala?
For a scandal many in the ANC hoped would quietly disappear into the archives of South African politics, Phala Phala has returned with extraordinary force.
Not through a viral leak.
Not through a new whistleblower.
Not through an opposition press conference.
But through the Constitutional Court itself.
And while social media erupted with claims that President Cyril Ramaphosa had already been impeached or found guilty of corruption, the truth is more complicated and potentially even more politically explosive.
The Constitutional Court did not remove Ramaphosa from office.
It did not convict him of a crime.
But it did rule that Parliament acted unconstitutionally when it blocked the impeachment process connected to the Phala Phala scandal in December 2022.
That ruling has now revived one of the most politically dangerous scandals of Ramaphosa’s presidency and reopened questions the ANC desperately wanted closed forever.
The Cash in the Couch That Shook South Africa
At the heart of the scandal sits one deeply bizarre image that has never left the public imagination.
Foreign currency allegedly hidden inside furniture at the president’s private game farm in Limpopo.
The most widely cited figure tied to the theft is approximately 580,000 US dollars. Some allegations have claimed the amount may have been significantly higher, with former intelligence boss Arthur Fraser alleging figures as high as 5 million dollars.
According to the public explanation, the money came from the sale of buffalo to a Sudanese businessman.
But the story immediately raised serious questions.
Why was such a massive amount of foreign cash allegedly being stored on a private farm?
Why was it reportedly hidden in furniture?
Why was the theft allegedly not reported through ordinary police channels?
And most importantly, were state resources improperly used to track down suspects and recover the money?
Those questions transformed what could have been a criminal burglary case into a constitutional crisis.
“There Appeared to Be Enough Evidence”
The scandal escalated dramatically in 2022 when Parliament established an independent Section 89 panel to assess whether there were grounds to proceed with an impeachment inquiry against the president.
The panel concluded there was prima facie evidence that Ramaphosa may have violated the Constitution and potentially breached anti corruption laws.
That phrase matters enormously.
Prima facie evidence does not mean guilt.
It means there appears to be sufficient evidence on the surface to justify a deeper investigation.
“The panel found there was what’s called prima facie evidence. In simple terms, that means there appeared to be enough evidence at face value to justify a deeper investigation.”
That should have triggered the next stage of the constitutional process.
Instead, the ANC controlled Parliament voted to shut the process down in December 2022.
Critics immediately accused Parliament of protecting Ramaphosa politically rather than allowing constitutional accountability to run its course.
Now the Constitutional Court has effectively agreed.
Parliament’s Shield Has Been Broken
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya ruled that Parliament acted inconsistently with the Constitution when it voted against referring the matter to Parliament’s impeachment committee.
That is the real significance of the judgment.
The Constitutional Court is essentially saying Parliament cannot simply use political majorities to bury constitutional accountability processes once an independent panel has already found sufficient evidence requiring further scrutiny.
“In other words, the Constitutional Court is essentially saying that once the independent Section 89 panel found sufficient evidence for further inquiry, Parliament could not simply bury the matter politically.”
This is now bigger than Phala Phala itself.
It strikes directly at the relationship between constitutional accountability and party political protection inside South Africa’s democratic system.
For years critics have argued that Parliament increasingly functions as a defensive shield for party leadership rather than an independent constitutional body capable of holding power accountable.
The court’s ruling cuts directly into that argument.
What Actually Happens Now?
The immediate political question is obvious.
Could Ramaphosa now be impeached?
Technically, yes.
But politically, the situation is far more complicated.
The Constitutional Court ruling means the matter must now return to Parliament’s impeachment structures for further investigation and proceedings.
This does not automatically remove the president from office.
It does not constitute a criminal conviction.
And it does not guarantee impeachment.
But it does reopen a process the ANC thought it had successfully killed nearly three years ago.
“The matter is no longer politically closed.”
That alone creates enormous political instability.
Ramaphosa entered office in 2018 promising renewal after the Zuma years, positioning himself as the face of constitutionalism, institutional rebuilding, and anti corruption reform.
Phala Phala has always threatened that image more than any other scandal because it directly collides with the brand Ramaphosa built his presidency around.
The issue is not only whether laws were broken.
It is whether the president who promised clean governance became entangled in exactly the kind of opaque and politically protected conduct South Africans were promised would end after state capture.
Why the Public Still Does Not Trust the Explanation
Part of what keeps Phala Phala politically radioactive is that many South Africans still feel they have never received a complete explanation.
“There’s lots of suspicion about the money being from another source.”
The unanswered questions continue to pile up.
Why was foreign cash allegedly stored at the farm instead of within formal banking systems?
Why were no buffalo reportedly collected if the payment explanation is accurate?
Why was there confusion over reporting procedures?
Were exchange control regulations properly followed?
And perhaps most damaging of all, did political power influence how law enforcement responded?
In a country where ordinary citizens often struggle to get police attention for theft cases, allegations that state resources may have been mobilised in a private matter involving the president strike a particularly sensitive nerve.
“If you’re the president and you can use all the different tools at your disposal, and you make use of those tools in a personal theft matter, that is a misuse of state funds.”
That perception alone is politically devastating.
The ANC’s Growing Problem
For the ANC, the timing could hardly be worse.
South Africa enters this phase of the scandal facing stagnant economic growth, collapsing infrastructure in key metros, energy instability, rising public frustration, and declining trust in institutions.
Ramaphosa remains central to the ANC’s attempts to present itself as stable and internationally credible.
Phala Phala threatens that strategy.
If impeachment proceedings intensify, the ANC faces an impossible balancing act.
Protect Ramaphosa too aggressively and it reinforces perceptions of political shielding.
Distance itself from him and it risks internal fragmentation at a time the party is already under enormous electoral pressure.
The scandal also arrives as South Africa’s constitutional institutions increasingly assert themselves against political power.
The Constitutional Court’s judgment sends a broader message far beyond Ramaphosa himself.
No parliamentary majority is above constitutional accountability.
Impeachment, Resignation, or Nothing?
The country is now entering a dangerous and unpredictable political phase.
Three possibilities dominate public discussion.
Ramaphosa survives politically and the process eventually fades.
Ramaphosa resigns under mounting pressure before matters escalate further.
Or Parliament ultimately proceeds toward impeachment.
Right now, nobody can honestly say which outcome is most likely.
But what is undeniable is this:
Phala Phala is no longer buried.
“The Constitutional Court has reopened the door that Parliament tried to close.”
And once constitutional processes begin moving again, political control becomes far harder to maintain.
For years the ANC relied on parliamentary numbers to neutralise threats.
The Constitutional Court has now signalled there are limits to that protection.
The bigger question now is not whether Phala Phala still matters.
It clearly does.
The real question is whether South Africa’s institutions are finally prepared to follow the scandal wherever it leads, even if that road ends at the presidency itself.
