CAPE TOWN, Friday 4 September 2026 — Opposition parties have urged the Western Cape High Court to reject President Cyril Ramaphosa’s attempt to overturn the independent Phala Phala panel report, arguing that the evidence was sufficient to require him to answer before Parliament and that reputational harm cannot shield a sitting president from a constitutional accountability process.
The arguments mark the respondents’ substantive answer to Ramaphosa’s review application, which began on Wednesday and is scheduled to conclude before a three-judge bench on Friday.
Ramaphosa wants the court to review and set aside the report produced by the independent panel established under Section 89 of the Constitution.
That report found that there was sufficient prima facie evidence for Ramaphosa potentially to have a case to answer over serious misconduct or constitutional violations arising from the February 2020 theft of about US$580,000 from his Phala Phala game farm.
The panel’s findings are not findings of guilt.
They triggered the parliamentary process through which a Section 89 committee would investigate whether grounds exist for Ramaphosa’s removal from office.
The African Transformation Movement, EFF, MK Party and United Africans Transformation are opposing Ramaphosa’s review.
Their arguments follow Ramaphosa’s submission that the panel applied the wrong legal test, failed properly to weigh his explanations and extended its analysis beyond the four charges that were placed before it.
His counsel, Wim Trengove SC, argued that the independent panel exists as a constitutional filter intended to protect a president from being subjected to an impeachment inquiry where there is insufficient evidence.
Ramaphosa also argues that being required to face an impeachment proceeding on an unlawful report would expose him to substantial public and reputational harm.
Opposition parties rejected that position during arguments on Thursday.
Advocate Mfesane Ka-Siboto, appearing for the EFF, argued that allowing reputational harm or humiliation to prevent an impeachment inquiry would undermine the purpose of Section 89 itself.
MK Party counsel Advocate Dali Mpofu similarly argued that the constitutional obligation of a president to account outweighed personal inconvenience or reputational consequences arising from the process.
Mpofu characterised Ramaphosa’s litigation as an attempt to delay accountability.
That is the MK Party’s legal and political argument and is disputed by Ramaphosa, whose case is that judicial intervention is necessary before Parliament proceeds on what he says is an unlawful panel report.
The ATM has separately argued that courts should generally avoid intervening before Parliament has completed its own constitutional process.
Advocate Anton Katz SC told the court that allowing challenges during intermediate stages of an impeachment process risked enabling litigation to repeatedly interrupt Parliament’s accountability mechanisms.
The judges have nevertheless questioned that argument closely.
Judge President Nolwazi Mabindla-Boqwana and Judges Mark Sher and Ncumisa Mayosi have raised questions about whether a president should be compelled to undergo a full impeachment inquiry if the independent panel did not establish sufficient evidence on the specific charges referred to Parliament.
Sher questioned why Ramaphosa should have to face the parliamentary proceeding if the four charges themselves were not adequately supported.
Mabindla-Boqwana also noted that an impeachment process has consequences extending beyond the individual office-holder because of the constitutional position occupied by the president.
The exchanges underline one of the central legal questions before the court: whether the panel’s report is merely an intermediate step which should only be challenged after Parliament completes its process, or whether its immediate consequences make it independently reviewable before an impeachment inquiry proceeds.
The respondents also defended the panel’s treatment of the underlying evidence.
Advocate Kessler Perumalsamy, appearing for ATM leader Vuyolwethu Zungula, argued that the panel considered both evidence potentially implicating Ramaphosa and evidence supporting his version before reaching its conclusions.
One issue attracting scrutiny is the allegation that Ramaphosa used his position in connection with efforts to trace suspects after the Phala Phala burglary.
The panel considered information relating to presidential protection head Major-General Wally Rhoode, presidential adviser Bejani Chauke and contacts involving Namibia.
Ramaphosa disputes the inferences drawn from that material.
His position is that he reported the burglary to Rhoode and expected the police official to handle the matter through appropriate channels.
The judges questioned whether some of the conclusions drawn from information concerning Namibia remained sufficiently supported when weighed against sworn explanations submitted by Ramaphosa, Rhoode and Chauke.
Perumalsamy maintained that the panel was conducting a preliminary assessment rather than a criminal trial and therefore did not need evidence sufficient to establish guilt.
The hearing has direct consequences for Parliament’s impeachment timetable.
Public hearings by the National Assembly’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee are currently halted under an interim Western Cape High Court order pending determination of Ramaphosa’s review.
The Constitutional Court declined in August to directly entertain an opposition attempt to overturn that interim restraint.
Parliament has continued preparatory work while the litigation proceeds.
Its impeachment committee recently reopened the process for appointing an evidence leader after concerns were raised about Advocate Thandazani Madonsela SC’s previous legal work for the ANC.
Separately, the MK Party has asked National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza to remove Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana as committee chairperson, an application on which no decision has yet been announced.
Those procedural disputes do not determine the High Court case.
The immediate legal question remains whether the independent panel report survives Ramaphosa’s review.
If the court dismisses the application, the principal legal obstacle currently preventing Parliament from moving towards public Section 89 hearings could fall away, subject to any further appeals or court orders.
If Ramaphosa succeeds and the report is set aside, Parliament will have to determine what remains of an impeachment process whose present mandate flows from that report.
Arguments are scheduled to conclude on Friday. Judgment may be reserved.
