PHALA PHALA: RAMAPHOSA’S LAWYER SAYS EVEN IF PRESIDENT WAS WRONG, HE DID NOT ACT IN BAD FAITH
President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal team has told the Western Cape High Court that even if the President was mistaken in how he handled the Phala Phala farm burglary, there is no evidence that he acted deliberately or in bad faith.
The argument was made by Advocate Wim Trengove during the hearing of Ramaphosa’s application to have the Section 89 Independent Panel Report reviewed and set aside.
At the centre of the legal challenge is the question of whether the panel properly considered the President’s state of mind when assessing whether his conduct could justify impeachment.
Trengove argued that the relevant parliamentary rules require more than simply showing that something may have gone wrong. According to Ramaphosa’s legal team, conduct capable of supporting impeachment must have been committed intentionally and in bad faith.
Ramaphosa has consistently maintained that after learning about the theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala game farm in February 2020, he reported the matter to Major-General Wally Rhoode, then head of the Presidential Protection Unit, and believed the appropriate steps would be taken.
Trengove argued that it would have been unreasonable to expect the President to personally go to a police station to report the burglary when he had already reported it to the head of his presidential protection unit.
The legal team is also challenging the panel’s approach to the evidence, arguing that the panel failed to properly weigh Ramaphosa’s explanation against allegations made against him.
The original Section 89 panel found that there was sufficient evidence to warrant further consideration of allegations relating to the Phala Phala matter. The report became the foundation for Parliament’s subsequent impeachment process.
Ramaphosa is now asking the High Court to review and set aside the report, arguing that the panel applied the wrong legal test and did not properly assess whether he acted deliberately or in bad faith.
However, the opposing side has strongly rejected Ramaphosa’s arguments. Advocate Anton Katz SC, representing the African Transformation Movement, told the court that the President’s review application has no merit and that the panel’s report should stand.
The case is therefore not simply about the stolen money. It is also about what legal threshold should apply before a sitting President can face a parliamentary impeachment inquiry, how evidence should be evaluated, and whether an alleged mistake or omission is enough to justify such a serious constitutional process.
⚠️ Important: The court has not yet ruled on the merits of Ramaphosa’s review application. The allegations and competing legal arguments remain part of ongoing proceedings.
🇿🇦 The big question is whether an official can be held responsible for an alleged failure or mistake if there is no evidence that the conduct was deliberate or carried out in bad faith.
💬 Do you agree with Ramaphosa’s legal team that a mistake made in good faith should not justify impeachment, or should serious failures in presidential conduct still be subjected to a full parliamentary inquiry?