The Western Cape High Court handed President Cyril Ramaphosa an interim interdict on Friday, temporarily halting the parliamentary impeachment process initiated against him. The ruling, granted in response to a court challenge filed by Ramaphosa himself, suspends proceedings while he pursues a separate legal challenge to an independent panel report that found he has a case to answer over alleged misconduct at his Phala Phala farm.
The interim order gives Ramaphosa a three-month window to seek a judicial review of the Section 89 Independent Panel report. That report, released following a Constitutional Court ruling in May, concluded that the president has questions to answer concerning the theft of approximately 580,000 dollars from his ranch in 2020. The Constitutional Court had previously determined that the National Assembly failed to properly implement the panel’s findings and directed lawmakers to initiate impeachment proceedings. The impeachment committee was established in direct response to that directive, and the process gained momentum after the committee was formed, prompting Ramaphosa to seek the court intervention now granted.
Ramaphosa has consistently denied wrongdoing. He acknowledges that thieves stole cash from his property but maintains the amount taken was far less than the 4 million dollars initially alleged. His account holds that the money represented proceeds from the sale of buffalo to a buyer who paid in cash, funds temporarily stored under sofa cushions at the farmhouse.
The panel report raised pointed concerns about that explanation. Investigators noted the unusual practice of storing large sums of foreign currency under furniture rather than in a safe pending deposit to a bank account. They also highlighted gaps in Ramaphosa’s account, including limited information about the buyer who allegedly purchased the buffalo and the fact that the animals had not been collected more than two and a half years after payment. The panel concluded these circumstances constituted “a very serious matter” warranting further examination.
Beyond the cash itself, the report addressed allegations that Ramaphosa abused his position as head of state by investigating the matter personally and enlisting Namibian President Hage Geingob to assist in arresting suspects. Geingob has denied involvement in any such arrangement.
The case, widely referred to as the “Farmgate scandal,” originated in June when Arthur Fraser, a former South African intelligence official and loyalist of former President Jacob Zuma, filed a police complaint against Ramaphosa. Fraser alleged the president had concealed the theft of 4 million dollars from his Phala Phala farm in the northeastern part of the country during 2020, and further suggested the money could represent proceeds from money laundering or corruption. He also accused Ramaphosa of kidnapping and bribing the burglars involved.
By contrast, Ramaphosa retains the support of the African National Congress, the ruling party leading South Africa’s coalition government. The ANC holds sufficient parliamentary seats to prevent his removal from office should the impeachment process ultimately proceed to a final vote. The positions of coalition partners remain unclear, however, and could affect the outcome if proceedings resume.
Friday’s ruling does not resolve the underlying allegations. What it does is buy time. The outcome of Ramaphosa’s review application could prove decisive in determining whether the parliamentary impeachment process advances to completion, and the three-month window now begins.