In Conversation With Prof Pieter Duvenage- Political analyst
Loading player...
President Cyril Ramaphosa has officially confirmed that he will not resign following the recent Constitutional Court ruling linked to the Section 89 impeachment process arising from the Phala Phala matter.
In a nationally televised address delivered from the Union Buildings, Ramaphosa said he accepts and respects the Constitutional Court’s judgment, but argued that the ruling does not compel him to step down as President.
The Constitutional Court found that aspects of the National Assembly’s Section 89 impeachment rules were unconstitutional, particularly regarding how Parliament handled the Independent Panel report into allegations connected to the Phala Phala farm controversy. The Court ordered that the report now be referred to Parliament’s Impeachment Committee for proper consideration.
However, Ramaphosa stressed that the Court made no finding on whether he committed misconduct or violated the Constitution. Instead, he framed the judgment as a procedural and constitutional matter concerning parliamentary processes.
The President also announced that he will proceed with a judicial review of the Independent Panel’s report itself, arguing that the report contains what he described as “grave flaws,” legal errors, and unsupported conclusions.
Ramaphosa defended his decision not to resign by saying stepping down now would amount to pre-empting a constitutional process that has not yet concluded. He further argued that resignation would undermine ongoing efforts to rebuild institutions, fight corruption, and stabilize governance following the State Capture era.
At the same time, opposition parties and some factions within the ANC continue to intensify pressure on the President, arguing that remaining in office while facing impeachment-related proceedings damages public trust and weakens political credibility.
The speech now sets the stage for what could become one of the most politically significant constitutional battles in post-apartheid South Africa.
This moment raises several major national questions:
● Is Ramaphosa defending constitutional due process, or simply fighting for political survival?
● Can the ANC maintain unity amid mounting internal and external pressure?
● And how will this affect public trust in democratic institutions, Parliament, and the Presidency itself?
The issue also places renewed focus on the balance between constitutional accountability, political stability, and the rule of law in South Africa’s democracy.
In a nationally televised address delivered from the Union Buildings, Ramaphosa said he accepts and respects the Constitutional Court’s judgment, but argued that the ruling does not compel him to step down as President.
The Constitutional Court found that aspects of the National Assembly’s Section 89 impeachment rules were unconstitutional, particularly regarding how Parliament handled the Independent Panel report into allegations connected to the Phala Phala farm controversy. The Court ordered that the report now be referred to Parliament’s Impeachment Committee for proper consideration.
However, Ramaphosa stressed that the Court made no finding on whether he committed misconduct or violated the Constitution. Instead, he framed the judgment as a procedural and constitutional matter concerning parliamentary processes.
The President also announced that he will proceed with a judicial review of the Independent Panel’s report itself, arguing that the report contains what he described as “grave flaws,” legal errors, and unsupported conclusions.
Ramaphosa defended his decision not to resign by saying stepping down now would amount to pre-empting a constitutional process that has not yet concluded. He further argued that resignation would undermine ongoing efforts to rebuild institutions, fight corruption, and stabilize governance following the State Capture era.
At the same time, opposition parties and some factions within the ANC continue to intensify pressure on the President, arguing that remaining in office while facing impeachment-related proceedings damages public trust and weakens political credibility.
The speech now sets the stage for what could become one of the most politically significant constitutional battles in post-apartheid South Africa.
This moment raises several major national questions:
● Is Ramaphosa defending constitutional due process, or simply fighting for political survival?
● Can the ANC maintain unity amid mounting internal and external pressure?
● And how will this affect public trust in democratic institutions, Parliament, and the Presidency itself?
The issue also places renewed focus on the balance between constitutional accountability, political stability, and the rule of law in South Africa’s democracy.
