President Ramaphosa Seeks Chief Justice’s Consent Before Reviewing Phala Phala Panel Report
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has asked Chief Justice Mandisa Maya to grant permission for a legal review of the independent panel’s findings on the Phala Phala saga. The move, described by legal analysts as a procedural safeguard, aims to prevent the review from being dismissed on technical grounds before its merits can be examined.
What the Phala Phala inquiry found
In 2022 a parliamentary panel, chaired by retired Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, investigated a 2020 theft of approximately US $580 000 (about R10 million) in cash that had been concealed on a couch at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm. The panel concluded that the president may have a case to answer because he reported the loss to General Wally Rhoode of the Presidential Protection Unit but did not notify the South African Police Service, as required by law for thefts exceeding R100 000.
The panel’s report therefore formed the basis for a potential impeachment inquiry, which the National Assembly initially declined to pursue in 2022.
Why the president is seeking judicial consent
Section 47 of the Superior Courts Act (Act 10 of 2013) stipulates that anyone wishing to institute civil proceedings against a judge must first obtain the consent of the court’s president. Legal experts consulted by Business Day noted that, without this consent, the review application could be challenged and possibly dismissed on procedural grounds, delaying any substantive consideration of the panel’s findings.
Mbekezeli Benjamin, a researcher with Judges Matter, explained:
“If the president files the review without first securing Chief Justice Maya’s assent, Ngcobo—or any interested party—could argue that the case violates Section 47 and should be thrown out. The court would then dismiss the matter without looking at the evidence.”
By seeking consent upfront, Ramaphosa aims to avoid a repeat of the fate that befell former presidents Jacob Zuma and Thabo Mbeki, whose attempt to challenge Judge Sisi Khampepe’s leadership of a commission was dismissed by the Johannesburg High Court on the same technicality.
Legal precedent and the Dippenaar judgment
The requirement for judicial consent was reinforced in a 2025 Gauteng High Court decision by Justice Fiona Dippenaar in the case of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Minister Gwede Mantashe versus former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo. Dippenaar held that Section 47 protects judges in both their judicial and extrajudicial capacities, meaning the rule applies whenever a litigant sues a judge, regardless of the judge’s current role.
Benjamin emphasized that the only statutory exception to Section 47 involves domestic‑violence matters; otherwise, consent is mandatory.
Implications for the impeachment process
Should Chief Justice Maya grant her consent, the president’s review application can proceed, allowing the Constitutional Court’s earlier order—to forward the independent panel’s report to the impeachment committee—to be acted upon. If consent is denied or not obtained, the review risks being struck down, postponing any parliamentary scrutiny of the alleged breach.
Observers note that the procedural step does not prejudge the substantive question of whether Ramaphosa violated the law; it merely ensures that the legal challenge is properly constituted before the courts consider the evidence.
Conclusion
President Ramaphosa’s request for Chief Justice Mandisa Maya’s approval reflects a cautious adherence to South Africa’s procedural safeguards. By aligning with Section 47 of the Superior Courts Act and heeding recent judicial interpretations, the presidency seeks to avert a technical dismissal that could obstruct the examination of the Phala Phala panel’s findings. The outcome will determine whether the matter advances to a full impeachment inquiry or remains stalled on procedural grounds.
- Amount stolen: ~US $580 000 (≈ R10 million) – cash hidden on a couch at Phala Phala game farm, 2020.
- Legal threshold for mandatory police reporting: thefts exceeding R100 000.
- Key legislation: Section 47, Superior Courts Act (Act 10 of 2013).
- Relevant cases: Mantashe v Zondo (Gauteng High Court, 2025); Zuma & Mbeki v Khampepe (Johannesburg High Court, 2023).
