The political landscape in South Africa is set to be shaken up once again in 2025, as the courts prepare to make rulings on two high-profile cases that have captured the nation’s attention. The first case involves the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party’s challenge to the results of the 2024 national election, while the second case sees the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) seeking to have President Cyril Ramaphosa impeached.
In November, the constitutional court heard arguments in the MK party’s application to overturn the National Assembly’s rejection of the Ngcobo panel’s report on the Phala Phala scandal. The panel, led by retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, recommended that President Ramaphosa face an impeachment inquiry for his alleged involvement in the theft of foreign currency from his private game farm.
The report, which was voted down by a majority in the National Assembly, raised questions about the source of the money and the circumstances under which it was hidden. During the court hearing, Justice Owen Rogers probed the plausibility of the president’s explanation regarding the cash from a cattle sale left unbanked.
The EFF, which has been at the forefront of the push for Ramaphosa’s impeachment, is also challenging the constitutionality of rule 129 of parliament’s impeachment rules. The rule gives the National Assembly the discretion to decide whether to proceed with impeachment after considering the findings of a panel. The EFF argues that this discretion should not be allowed and is calling for the court to order the chamber to initiate impeachment proceedings.
The outcome of these cases will not only have implications for President Ramaphosa’s political future but will also shed light on the extent to which legal findings can be influenced by political considerations. The cases also touch on broader issues such as parliamentary prerogatives and constitutional responsibilities.
In a separate case, Freedom Under Law has challenged the National Assembly’s decision to appoint the impeached former judge president John Hlophe to the Judicial Service Commission. Hlophe’s nomination came just four months after he was removed from the bench for breaching the judicial code of conduct. Freedom Under Law argues that the appointment was an irrational exercise of public power and a misreading of the constitution.
The Democratic Alliance has also challenged Hlophe’s appointment, seeking an interim interdict to prevent him from taking up his seat on the JSC. While the main ruling on this case is pending, the court has granted the interim interdict and denied Hlophe and the MK party leave to appeal the order.
As these cases play out in the courts, South Africa’s political landscape remains uncertain. The outcomes of these cases will not only have implications for the individuals involved but will also shape the future of the country’s democracy. The recent court decision to dismiss the application by the MK party has sparked a series of legal battles and challenges in South Africa. The court ruled that the application had failed on its merits and criticized the party for not providing enough facts to establish a prima facie case. Subsequently, the party faced punitive damages from the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) for abruptly withdrawing its challenge without seeking permission from the court or the respondents.
The MK party’s counsel tried to justify the withdrawal as a temporary pause in the litigation process to resolve procedural issues. However, the IEC accused the party of engaging in an abusive and dilatory litigation strategy. Despite acknowledging that the party had deviated from standard practice, the court refrained from granting an order to bar them from future legal proceedings without prior court approval.
Following the failed application, the MK party filed a fresh challenge alleging widespread irregularities in the election process. They relied on a report by Vusi Mhlongo, a former technology expert, claiming discrepancies in the IEC’s information and communication technology system. In response, the chief electoral officer dismissed Mhlongo’s allegations as unfounded and lacking in expertise and objectivity.
The legal battle intensified as the party accused the IEC of discrediting their expert witness instead of addressing the issues raised in the report. Despite the ongoing dispute, no hearing date has been set yet. Additionally, the Moses Kotane Research Institute and Mhlongo reached a separation agreement following disciplinary charges against him.
In a separate legal challenge, three organizations have filed petitions against the National Health Insurance (NHI) Act signed by President Ramaphosa before the elections. The Board of Health Care Funders, Solidarity, and the SA Private Practitioners Forum have raised concerns about the constitutionality of the act. President Ramaphosa defended his decision to sign the bill and suggested that the applicants should have approached the constitutional court instead of the high court.
Furthermore, President Ramaphosa sent the Copyright Amendment Bill back to parliament for reconsideration due to concerns about potentially unconstitutional provisions. He referred the bill to the constitutional court for certification, citing issues related to copyright restrictions and delegation of legislative authority. The legal challenges surrounding the NHI Act and the Copyright Amendment Bill highlight the ongoing legal battles in South Africa’s political landscape.
