The Constitutional Court has reserved its judgment in the Phala Phala challenge brought by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM). The case centers on the National Assembly’s decision not to adopt the Independent Panel’s report on allegations linked to President Cyril Ramaphosa's Phala Phala farm.
During the hearing, President Ramaphosa’s legal counsel defended the National Assembly’s actions, asserting that the Section 89 panel report was flawed. Advocate Geoff Budlender argued that the President had not acted in bad faith or deliberately misinterpreted the law.
“But even if one assumes, for the sake of argument, that the panel’s interpretation is correct, that doesn’t answer whether the President deliberately and in bad faith adopted the wrong interpretation of the term ‘paid work,’” Budlender stated.
He emphasized that the President’s farming activities were never concealed. “The President has even published a book showcasing the particular breed of cattle he is passionate about. It seems unlikely he would act unlawfully in bad faith and then publicize those activities,” Budlender added, arguing that Ramaphosa genuinely believed his actions were lawful.
Meanwhile, EFF leader Julius Malema addressed supporters gathered outside the court, expressing confidence in the party’s position on the matter.
“This Constitutional Court must ensure Parliament acts in line with the Constitution. It is not political interference; it is about constitutional compliance,” Malema declared, urging the court to deliver a legitimate decision.
The Phala Phala scandal, which involves allegations of undeclared foreign currency theft at the President’s farm, has remained a contentious issue, drawing criticism and scrutiny from opposition parties. The court’s pending judgment could have significant implications for the President and Parliament’s handling of the matter.