Picture: RSA president, Cyril Ramaphosa
By BAKANG MOKOTO
12 May 2026 – Most political parties have expressed mixed reactions over the Republic of South Africa (RSA) president, Cyril Ramaphosa’s decision to take Section 89 Panel report over Phala Phala saga on review. Ramaphosa, who addressed the nation last night, said he is exercising his judicial rights because he believes that the report is flawed.
The Democratic Alliance (DA) leader, Geordin Hill-Lewis said Ramaphosa’s decision to take the Section 89 Panel report on review must not be used to delay the work of Parliament. Hill-Lewis said it is his legal right to approach the High Court and the DA respects due process, the courts and the rule of law.
“Ramaphosa should bring any review application with due haste and on an expedited basis, so that the legal position is clarified quickly and this matter is not delayed unnecessarily. Parliament must also now take urgent legal advice on the implications of the President’s incoming review, including whether it affects the establishment and work of the impeachment committee, or whether the committee may proceed while the review is underway.
“Given the serious constitutional consequences of this matter, and the massive public interest in it, Parliament must take the South African people into its confidence by sharing that legal advice once it receives it,” he said.
Hill-Lewis further said this matter must be handled lawfully, transparently and with the constitutional seriousness it deserves. He added that the DA will continue to be guided by the Constitution, the rule of law, and the legal position before Parliament.
“This remains an ANC-made crisis, rooted in serious unanswered questions about the President’s conduct and the ANC’s long record of shielding its own leaders from accountability,” said Hill-Lewis.
The ATM spokesperson, Zama Ntshona said as the initiators of this motion, they must state without hesitation that any further delay in the proper processing of this matter, particularly through the introduction of what appears to be a judicial review process, stands in direct contradiction to the spirit of the Constitution and the demands of justice. Ntshona said the South African people have waited long enough for finality.
“They have a right to closure, not continuous postponement. It is important to remember that had Arthur Fraser not come forward publicly, the nation would not have been made aware of the seriousness of the Phala Phala allegations.
“That disclosure triggered a constitutional obligation on Parliament to act, not to evade or defer responsibility. A judicial review does not and cannot suspend the impeachment or accountability processes of Parliament,” she said.
Ntshona said these are separate constitutional domains. She said the Parliament remains seized with its own independent duty to hold the Executive accountable, and that duty cannot be delegated to the courts or paused through litigation strategies.
“The terms of reference for any renewed or continued inquiry must be sufficiently wide and unrestrained to fully interrogate the nature of what transpired. This includes, but is not limited to, all key individuals who may have direct or indirect knowledge of the events in question.
“This must include Fraser, the farm manager, the domestic worker who was reportedly subjected to torture or intimidation, the Sudanese businessman allegedly involved, and any other person who may have relevant information,” said Ntshona.
She said no effort should be made to narrow or sanitise the inquiry in a manner that weakens the pursuit of truth. Ntshona said the African National Congress (ANC) must resist any temptation to dilute the seriousness and magnitude of this matter.
“The President was found by the Independent Panel to have a case to answer, and the Constitutional Court, the apex court in the land, itself has confirmed serious procedural and constitutional failures in how Parliament previously handled its obligations.
“That confirmation cannot be ignored, reinterpreted, or politically managed away. It is deeply concerning that a judicial review is now being used in a manner that appears to challenge the wisdom and authority of the judiciary, particularly when this matter was already subjected to prolonged delay over a period of years,” she said.
Ntshona said it is ironic, and frankly troubling, that this comes from a President who consistently asserts respect for the rule of law, yet the process continues to raise questions about accountability and transparency. She said the Speaker of the National Assembly now carries a historic responsibility to defend the integrity of Parliament.
COPE leader, Teboho Loate said they acknowledge and respect the President’s constitutional right to seek judicial review of the findings of the independent parliamentary panel. Loate said in a constitutional democracy founded on the rule of law, every person, including the President, is entitled to exercise legal remedies available under the Constitution.
“The Constitutional Court judgment was not merely a technical procedural matter. It was a serious indictment of Parliament’s failure to fulfil its constitutional oversight obligations after the National Assembly improperly used its rules and majority power to shield the Executive from scrutiny.
“COPE therefore reiterates that South Africa must avoid two dangerous extremes by protecting leaders from accountability through political majorities and pursuing political instability and institutional paralysis through reckless opportunism,” he said.
Loate said: “We do not believe that constitutional accountability should be reduced to political theater, factional battles, or populist grandstanding. Equally, we reject any attempt to minimize the significance of the Constitutional Court judgment.
“The impeachment process must now proceed independently, transparently, fairly, and without political interference. COPE remains consistent in its long-standing position that Parliament must never serve as a protective mechanism for the Executive.”
The Guardian 