‘It’s a spit on the face of our people’: Parties slam Phala Phala ruling as ANC defends Ramaphosa
· Citizen
Political parties have sharply differed in their reactions after parliament’s impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala scandal was temporarily halted.
Visit sport-tr.bet for more information.
The Western Cape High Court in Cape Town on Friday, 24 July 2026, granted an interim interdict preventing National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza and impeachment committee chairperson Makashule Gana from continuing with the process.
The decision remains in place pending the outcome of Ramaphosa’s review application against the Section 89 independent panel report.
That report found that the president has questions to answer regarding the theft of approximately $580 000 (about R9.6 million) from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo in February 2020.
The review application is set to be heard from 2 to 4 September.
ANC defends Ramaphosa after interdict win
ANC MP and impeachment committee member Mikateko Mahlaule on Friday defended the court’s decision, describing it as a reflection of constitutional protections rather than a setback for parliamentary oversight.
“We respect the independence of the judiciary, and we see this not as a way to impede Parliament in continuing with its obligation to hold the president accountable.
“But this is the justice that the president has sought, of relief pending his review.
“We think that the judgment really affirms that everyone in South Africa has the right, including the president himself,” he told the media.
Mahlaule urged political parties not to mischaracterise the ruling as a judgment on the president’s guilt or innocence.
“It has nothing to do with that,” the ANC member remarked.
The African National Congress welcomes the judgment of the Western Cape High Court granting President Cyril Ramaphosa's application to interdict the continuation of the Section 89 impeachment enquiry pending the determination of his review application. pic.twitter.com/g2lQrrVMty
— ANC – African National Congress (@MYANC) July 24, 2026
He also defended his earlier opposition to appointing evidence leaders for the committee, arguing that continuing proceedings before the court’s ruling would have been premature.
“We may beat each other up for evidence leaders when there is no need, like there is no need now to continue.
“So we warned the committee that continuing when the judgment is still pending may be a fruitless exercise and we have been proven right,” Mahlaule said.
MK party condemns judgment
uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party MP Andile Mngxitama criticised the court in strong terms, saying its ruling is “a spit on the face of our people”.
“This court has determined that Ramaphosa must not be held accountable, at least in the immediate.
“He’s playing on delaying tactics, and the court seems to be his partner in making sure that he does not appear before the committee to account,” Mngxitama said outside the court on Friday.
He further argued that the allegations linked to the Phala Phala farm require urgent scrutiny.
“We know that there are multiple possible transgressions which have happened here.
“The whole issue of the exchange of money from outside coming to his farm unaccounted for, the fact that people were tortured, the fact that state institutions were used to go and abduct people from outside of the country.
“There are many, many serious crimes which occurred on that farm and all we ask is that Ramaphosa must come and explain,” the MK party MP continued.
— MK Party in Parliament (@MKParliament) July 24, 2026
Ramaphosa not above scrutiny
DA leader Geordin Hill-Lewis also weighed in, stating that the court’s ruling should not be interpreted as a finding on the truth of the allegations or as clearing Ramaphosa.
He emphasised that while the president is within his rights to pursue legal avenues, the public also deserves answers about the Phala Phala saga.
“President Ramaphosa must be given a proper opportunity to answer the allegations.
“At the same time, the office of the president cannot place its occupant beyond scrutiny,” Hill-Lewis said in a statement.
Additionally, the committee – made up of 31 members of parliament from 16 political parties – acknowledged that the interdict affects its public hearings, but discussions are ongoing about how to proceed.
“The committee will study the full judgment to see which aspects of the work can proceed,” Gana said in a statement.