SITTING PRESIDENT RAMAPHOSA REVIEW APPLICATION: THE LEGAL SAGA OF THE HEAD OF STATE- AN UPDATE AS IT GOES ALONG

We are currently have 5th row seats to a real episode of House of Cards right here in the republic of South Africa. Impeachment application being made against a seating President, Panel coming back with a president that says that there is "Prima facie" evidence that the president did some foul shit, National assembly (Parliament) reading that reporting and voting that "Our president must not be touched" , no one is getting impeached. Eff taking the shit to the Constitutional Court to which the Constitutional court ordered that the National assembly rule is invalid to the extent that it falls short of the Constitution. Further providing that because of the amendement, the Panel report that implicates the President must be sent to an impeachment committee for them to confirm that there is "sufficient evidence" pointing to the President being on some shady vibes. President ,after that judgment, saying "not on my watch- impeachment for who"- Does a chess move by taking the Panel report on review on basis that it falls short of the legality principle espoused in the Constitution. Lets begin with a quick recap of the saga

• RECAP: CORE BACKGROUND FACTS THAT LED US TO HERE:

The material facts giving rise to this review are as follows:

• 9 February 2020: A burglary occurs at the President’s Phala Phala wildlife game farm, resulting in the theft of foreign currency hidden in a couch.

• 1 June 2022: Arthur Fraser, former National Commissioner of Correctional Services, opens a criminal case regarding the incident.

• 18 July 2022: Vuyolwethu Zungula (ATM) initiates a Section 89 motion in the National Assembly for the President's removal.

• 14 September 2022: The Speaker appoints an Independent Panel—comprising retired Chief Justice Ngcobo, retired Judge Masipa, and Adv Sello SC—to conduct a preliminary inquiry.

• 19 October 2022: The motion and supporting evidence are formally referred to the Panel.

• 30 November 2022: The Panel renders its Report, concluding there is prima facie evidence that the President may have committed serious violations of the Constitution and the law.

• 5 December 2022: The Applicant (President Ramaphosa) launches a application to review and set aside the Report in the Constitutional court, but the consitutional court find that is does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter. Simultaneously on the other end in parliament, The National assembly votes that the report not be referred to an Impeachment comittee and that the who thing be stopped.

• Then February 2024, the EFF went to the Constitutional court to request for the court to find the voting of the National Assembly to be invalid and set aside and find that the rule in the National Assembly providing for impeachment of a president to be declared unlawful and set aside. Matter was heard on the 24th of November 2024 and on.....

• 8 May 2026 the Constitutional court made judgment providing that the vote be set aside, rule be declared unlawful and the report be referred to a impeachment committee.

• Then we are here now 26 May 2026, Review application of the panel report wherein the President is requesting the report be set aside and basically the halting of the impeachment committee doing any further work.

______________________________________________________________

• THE REVIEW APPLICATION: NOTICE OF MOTION AND FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT.

Following the constitutional court judgment, the President loads the clip and brings a Review Application brought in terms of Uniform Rule 53, seeking to set aside the Panel report(that says he has a case to answer to) and subsequent parliamentary actions(being stoping the appointment of the impeachment commitee and that shit going on a vote as to whether the president must be impeached.

I saw a post on Social media post, purportedly from the African transformation movement politcal wherein they post a letter address to the President wherein the party's attorney advances that the president seeks an interdict of the impeachment committee proceedings. I dont think that is the case as the application itself did not explicitly seek an order for proceedings to be interdicted from happening. The following is what the President is asking for from the Court.....

The Relief Sought (The Prayers)

The Applicant requests the following specific orders from the Court:

Prayer 1.1: That the report of the Independent Panel, rendered in terms of NA Rule 129G, and specifically the recommendations in paragraph 264, be reviewed, declared unlawful, and set aside.

Prayer 1.2: That any steps taken by the National Assembly pursuant to the Report be reviewed, declared unlawful, and set aside( its giving interdict but it isnt because here the president wishes to khwee the whole process final, basically, asking the court to void anything done by the National Assembly as it pertains to this panel report).

Prayer 1.3: That any party opposing the application be ordered to pay the Applicant’s costs.

Prayer 2 (Procedural): Calling upon Respondents 1 through 4 to show cause why the Report and steps should not be set aside, and requiring them to dispatch the record of the proceedings (including reasons) to the Registrar within 15 days of receipt.

Critical Procedural Timelines

Now with the review application under way, as of 26 May 2026, the Independent Panel must dispatch the record of the proceedings/sitting(where they reached the conclusion of their report) together with a reason showing why the report should not be set aside within 15 days. So we should expect the reasoning from the Panel, 2nd week of June.

Also in the second week fo June 2026 we should expect to see who opposes because any respondent who opposes has 15 days from 26 May 2026 to oppose. After the expiraction of the 15days then whoever opposses will have 30 court days to file their Answering Affidavit after the 10 days lapses for the Applicant to amend their application upon receiving the record and the reasoning from the Independent panel.

(Its a alot right, i know, 15 days that, 30 days that, 10 days this. Too much to keep track off, so to summarize, The next thing we should look out for is news that the Independent Panel record has been dispatched to the high court together with reasons why their report should not be set aside. The Applicant being the presidnet, will be sent the record and reason also and he will have 10 days to amend or supplement his application in the event that he sees some details he was not aware off in the record. )

Now lets dive into what really is in the application. What are grounds cited for the setting aside of the report.

• The Legal Cause of Action & Grounds for Relief

The Applicant challenges the Report primarily through a Legality Review, wherein the court is requested to step in to determine whether the panel report and the independents panel's action conforms with the Constitution, in terms of action taken and the report itself being lawful and rational.

Its a essentially a review wherein the court is requested to determine whether the actions of the independent panel was lawful and rational and that the report iself is founded on lawful and rational basis.

In this application for the review of the independent panel report, the Legal respresentive of the president put on a masterclass in reading and applying law to the facts. The following is the two main legal framework and legal principle relied upon

LEGAL FRAMEWORKS/PRINCIPLES BACKING HIS REASONING THAT PANEL REPORT MUST BE SET ASIDE:

The Applicant relies on a combination of supreme law and specific procedural rules to ground the review:

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996: 

Specifically Section 89(1), which provides the only legal grounds for the removal of a President. These grounds beings a President may be removed based the following ground:1. Serious violation of the Constitution or the Law; 2. Serious Misconduct; 3. Inability to perform the functions of office.

Now in terms section 89(1) the president in his application for review essentially employed its application through the definition of the first two grounds. According to the president the Serious violation and the Serious misconduct must be done deliberately and in bad father. According to that definition, the President posits that the Independent panel fell short of producing sufficient evidence that points to the President having done some shit deliberately and in bad faith.

(I wonder where this definition was gotten from because if really that is standard of what constitutes serious misconduct and serios violation, then they cooked because from what we understand about the evidence that the independent panel had, there is no way that that evidence sufficiently points to the President having deliberately, intentionally and in bad faith have done those things personally).

________________________________________________________

National Assembly Rules 129A–129Q: 

These internal rules establish the procedure for the Section 194/Section 89 removal process, including the appointment and mandate of the Independent Panel.

The President specifically seeks to set aside the recommendations in paragraph 264 of the Independent Panel’s Report, arguing they were rendered unlawfully in terms of Rule 129G. He contends that the Panel misconstrued its mandate and the "sufficient evidence" threshold required by these rules.

(Basically the president provided that the the panel in performing its duties were supposes to determine whether there is sufficient evidence pointing to the president having committeed serious misconduct and conduct contrary to the constitution and the law. Instead the panel went another direction and determined that there is a prima facie case that the president must answer to. So basically the argument of the president was that the standard of the Independent panel was to establish whether there is sufficient evidence not whether there is a prima facie case for the president to answer. This is good work from the legal team because the rule governing the panel's duty, provides that they must establish whether there is sufficient evidence not whether there is a prima facie case to answer). The panels process was all fucked up

_________________________________________________________

Law of Evidence:

This is were the legal team, cooked. Challenging the "Evidence" as inadmissible because it was mostly Hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible evidence unless the panel established that the exception applied.

The President makes an argument that the Independent Panel did not evaluate the evidence in a sense that the panel did not scrutinize the evidence it was furnished with and did not determined whether said evidence is admissible.

Another good argument is that the Panel did not consider whether the Hearsay evidence it was presented with is admissible on the basis that it falls under the listed exceptional circumstances which call for such evidence to be admitted.

The legality of the evidence in that the panel never enquired as to how the evidence was obtained.

The panel did not determine as to whether, since its hearsay evidence that is mostly before it, whether such evidence is admissible based on the Interest of Justice.

_______________________________________________________

PERSONAL NOTE:

After having read the founding affidavit, i find it hard to picture an outcome wherein the court does not grant setting aside of the panel report and its conclusion. The arguments advanced by the President perfectly explains how the Independent Panel fell short of its mandate in terms of the Rule of the National Assembly that provides for what the Panel is suppose to do within this process of Impeachment. It seems the Panel looked into whether the president has a case to answer not whether there is sufficient evidence pointing to the president having committed these shits that calls for his removal in terms of section 89(1) of the Constitution. They perfectly argued how it was not for the Panel to establish whether there is a prima facie case against the president. Their job was to look at all the evidence infront of it and determine whether there is enough evidence that point to the President having committed serious misconduct or seriously violated the Constitution and the Law. Basically the process employed by the Panel was flawed and that is a ground of review.

The attack on the admissibility of evidence itself is brilliant in the sense that the Legal team argued that the evidence was cooked because it was hearsay evidence and hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless the exception is applicable. The legal team argues that the rules of evidence where not followed. And the reason why they incorporated the Laws of evidence in their reasoning for the setting aside of the panel report is because the Rule of the National Assembly specifically makes mention the the panel must deal with "Evidence" not information. Therefore the use of the word Evidence is construed as the evidence use by the have to be in compliance with the Rules of Evidence. (A ground of Review)

__________________________________________________________________________________

From where i am sitting, there are two Grounds of Opposition against this application. Basically the review application could fail on two basis.

• Potential Vulnerabilities & Defense Strategy (Points in Limine)

Based strictly on the Applicant’s papers and the legal framework, the following fatal flaws could be raised as preliminary objections (points in limine):

• Unreasonable and Undue Delay: The impugned National Assembly vote occurred on 13 December 2022. This application was only filed on 26 May 2026, representing a delay of over three years. In a legality review, an unexplained delay must be viewed as unreasonable, and the Applicant has not explicitly provided a formal application for condonation in these papers.

• Mootness: The application seeks to review steps taken by the Sixth Parliament, which has since expired. Under NA Rule 351(2), all business before the National Assembly lapses at the end of its term. The Respondents may argue that setting aside the vote of a defunct Parliament has no practical effect.

Disclaimer: The views and analyses expressed on this blog are for informational and educational purposes only. This site serves as a self-guiding diary intended to facilitate my personal understanding of specific subjects and does not serve as an authoritative reference. Information is provided "as is" without any guarantees of completeness or accuracy. Please consult a local, professionally trained individual in the subject matter or you can conduct your own research for any formal inquiries or professional advice. PSA, dont corner an attorney at a Maza or a Braai on a weekend and consult there. Preferably arrange an appointment with the office