We all know the EFF is in trouble as Jacob Zuma’s MK Party steals its thunder – and leaders. So is the party’s latest move to head to the Concourt over the Phala Phala matter just a political ploy to regain some of the spotlight – or is it actually an important issue we should pay attention to as South Africans?  

The party was out in full force on Tuesday in Johannesburg for a march to the Constitutional Court ahead of proceedings, with 2000 red-clad members reportedly in attendance. “Every president must be held accountable,” said EFF leader Julius Malema, who led the march alongside prominent party members like Sinawo Tambo, Carl Niehaus, Nkululeko Dunga, and Marshall Dlamini. 

This court action may be a political play by EFF as it increasingly finds its back against the wall with Jacob Zuma’s MK Party stealing its thunder, but there are also real issues at play. But first, some quick background. 

The history

The Phala Phala scandal is the political gift that keeps on giving — for opposition parties, anyway. The EFF is now taking the matter to the Constitutional Court, hoping to keep the spotlight on this controversial chapter of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s presidency.

If you’re not up to speed, let’s rewind: in 2020, a robbery took place at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm in Limpopo, where a significant amount of foreign currency was allegedly stolen. The scandal snowballed when it came to light in 2022 after former State Security boss Arthur Fraser filed a criminal complaint, alleging that Ramaphosa concealed the theft and even participated in shady dealings to recover the money. According to Fraser, around $4 million was stolen, an amount Ramaphosa denied. The South African Reserve Bank later put it at $580 000. 

The President has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, but his explanations,  involving “game sales” and dollars stashed in a sofa, have left many scratching their heads. The incident raised concerns about transparency, potential violations of foreign exchange laws, and whether a sitting president should be handling wads of cash in his personal capacity.

The EFF, always quick to pounce, has long been one of the loudest voices demanding accountability.=  Now, it’s turning to the country’s highest court to challenge Parliament’s handling of the matter. Court proceedings took place on Tuesday this week, after the party’s legal team filed papers in February this year at the Constitutional Court to have the National Assembly’s decision not to adopt the Section 89 Independent Panel Report into the Phala Phala Farm matter declared irrational and unlawful​.

Why does this matter?

For South Africans, the case raises important questions about the balance of power and the strength of democratic institutions. Parliament is meant to be a check on the executive, but critics argue that the ANC’s dominance often shields its leaders from scrutiny.

This isn’t the first time the Constitutional Court has been asked to weigh in on parliamentary accountability. Back in 2017, it found that MPs failed to properly hold former President Jacob Zuma to account over the Nkandla scandal. The EFF is banking on the court issuing a similar rebuke this time around.

“We did the same thing with Jacob Zuma when he spent money on Nkandla. We took him to the Constitutional Court, and they said he must pay back the money,” said Malema at Tuesday’s march. 

What’s the EFF’s case?

At the heart of the EFF’s argument is Parliament’s decision in December 2022 to reject the findings of an independent panel that recommended Ramaphosa face an impeachment inquiry. The EFF claims that this rejection violated constitutional principles, specifically the legislature’s duty to hold the executive to account.

The panel, led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, found that there was enough prima facie evidence to suggest the President may have breached his oath of office.

Despite this, a majority of MPs (most of whom belong to Ramaphosa’s ANC) voted against adopting the report. The EFF contends that this move was not only partisan but also undermined the independence and credibility of Parliament’s oversight role. Advocate Kameel Premhid, for the EFF, told the court on Tuesday that: “At the preliminary stage of the investigation, all the National Assembly is asked to do is to vote yay or nay, does prima facie evidence exist,they chose the wrong reason and the consequence is that the vote to vote down the panel’s report is an unlawful outcome.”

What’s next?

The Constitutional Court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for Ramaphosa’s political future and for how Parliament handles allegations of executive misconduct going forward. But legal processes take time, so don’t expect fireworks just yet.

Already justices are questioning the timing of the matter, with several asking why it took as long as 14 months for the EFF to launch the application. Justice Leona Theron said she was concerned that the party provided no explanation for the delay, Daily Maverick reported. 

For Ramaphosa, the stakes couldn’t be higher. His administration has tried to project an image of reform and renewal after the Zuma years, but Phala Phala continues to cast a long shadow. Now it’s over to the Constitutional Court to decide whether Parliament dropped the ball.

s thunder – and leaders. So is the party’s latest move to head to the Concourt over the Phala Phala matter just a political ploy to regain some of the spotlight – or is it actually an important issue we should pay attention to as South Africans?  Read more about the case, its implications, and what’s at stake for South Africa here. 

+ posts