CAPE TOWN, Wednesday 2 September 2026 — President Cyril Ramaphosa has asked the Western Cape High Court to set aside the independent panel report that triggered Parliament’s renewed Phala Phala impeachment process, arguing that the panel failed to properly assess the evidence and applied the wrong approach when deciding that he had a case to answer.
A three-judge bench comprising Judge President Nolwazi Mabindla-Boqwana, Judge Mark Sher and Judge Ncumisa Mayosi began hearing Ramaphosa’s substantive review application on Wednesday. The hearing is scheduled to run until Friday.
The case is politically significant because Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment inquiry is currently prevented from beginning public hearings until the High Court determines the review.
Ramaphosa’s counsel, Wim Trengove SC, told the court that the panel chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo did not sufficiently assess whether there was evidence that the president had acted wilfully and in bad faith.
“The panel should have asked itself, not only whether there’s sufficient evidence, but whether there is sufficient evidence that the president acted wilfully and in bad faith,” Trengove argued.
Ramaphosa’s challenge relates to the independent panel established by the National Assembly in 2022 to conduct a preliminary assessment of allegations arising from the theft of approximately $580,000 in cash from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.
The panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence for Ramaphosa potentially to have a case to answer over serious misconduct or constitutional violations.
The president disputes the legal and evidentiary basis on which those conclusions were reached.
His legal team argued on Wednesday that the panel did not properly weigh Ramaphosa’s account against allegations made by former State Security Agency director-general Arthur Fraser, whose complaint brought the matter into the public domain.
Trengove argued that the panel had instead recorded competing allegations before concluding that a prima facie case existed.
Ramaphosa’s application identifies several grounds on which he says the report should be reviewed and set aside.
These include claims that the panel misunderstood its mandate, incorrectly assessed the information before it, misinterpreted allegations against the president and relied on hearsay without adequately testing the material presented.
The legal dispute follows a significant intervention by the Constitutional Court of South Africa earlier this year.
The Constitutional Court in May invalidated the National Assembly’s 2022 decision not to proceed with an impeachment inquiry after receiving the independent panel’s report.
That judgment led Parliament of South Africa to establish a Section 89 Impeachment Committee to investigate the allegations.
Ramaphosa subsequently launched the High Court review of the report underpinning that process.
In July, a separate full bench of the Western Cape High Court granted Ramaphosa an interim interdict preventing Parliament from proceeding with public impeachment hearings while the substantive review remained unresolved.
The majority found that Ramaphosa had established grounds for an interdict of limited duration.
The parliamentary process has nevertheless continued with preparatory work.
The Impeachment Committee on Tuesday rescinded its earlier recommendation that Advocate Thandazani Madonsela SC serve as evidence leader and reopened nominations for the position.
Political parties have until Friday to submit additional candidates, with the committee expected to consider the nominations next week.
The High Court proceedings therefore have direct consequences for Parliament’s timetable.
If Ramaphosa succeeds in having the independent panel report set aside, Parliament would have to consider the implications for an impeachment inquiry whose mandate currently rests on that report.
If the review fails, the interim restraint on the committee’s public proceedings could fall away, allowing Parliament to move towards substantive hearings subject to any further legal proceedings.
Arguments in the Western Cape High Court are continuing.
