The Economic Freedom Fighters will learn on Friday whether its challenge to Parliament’s handling of the Phala Phala scandal will succeed, in a ruling that could have far-reaching implications for executive accountability.
Image: IOL Graphics / Shaakirah Lagadien / File
The Constitutional Court will deliver its long-awaited judgment on the Economic Freedom Fighters’ (EFF) bid to revive the Phala Phala matter on Friday, May 8, as pressure mounts on President Cyril Ramaphosa and concerns about accountability.
The apex court confirmed the date on Tuesday afternoon.
“Kindly be informed that the judgment in this matter will be handed down at the Constitutional Court on Friday, 08 May 2026 at 10h00,” said Chief Registrar Simoné-Lanique Tjamela.
Last month, IOL News reported that the Constitutional Court was in the final stages of preparing its highly anticipated judgment in the Phala Phala matter.
The case that has drawn significant public attention since emerging from a burglary scandal at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Limpopo farm.
Tjamela had previously indicated that the judgment would be delivered within a month.
The incident dates back to February 2020, when approximately $580,000 (about R8 million at the time) was allegedly stolen from a sofa during a break-in at the farm.
The EFF has repeatedly criticised the delay, saying that the time taken far exceeds the judiciary’s guideline that judgments should generally be delivered within three months, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The party has staged protests outside the Constitutional Court.
The case, heard on November 26 2024, centres on the EFF’s attempt to revive the Phala Phala saga.
The party approached the court to challenge Parliament’s December 2022 decision not to adopt the Section 89 panel report, which found that Ramaphosa may have a case to answer.
The protests follow a letter from EFF leader Julius Malema to Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, in which he demanded clarity on what the party described as an “unacceptable delay”. Malema warned that the prolonged wait risks eroding public confidence in the judiciary and weakening constitutional accountability.
At the heart of the dispute is the case Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others, which examines how Parliament handled the Phala Phala matter.
Meanwhile, an Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) report has alleged a cover-up related to the robbery.
IPID has recommended disciplinary action against two South African Police Service (SAPS) officers, including a senior member of the Presidential Protection Service, over their alleged roles in the incident.
Those implicated are Major General Wally Rhoode, head of the Presidential Protection Service, and Constable HH Rekhoto.
Rekhoto is attached to the Presidential Protection Service unit at the head office in Pretoria.
The findings follow the declassification of the IPID report into the conduct of Presidential Protection Service members, after a Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA) application by ActionSA and the African Transformation Movement (ATM).
Suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu had previously indicated the report would remain classified.
IPID identified Rhoode and Rekhoto as “the individuals who were mostly involved in the alleged cover-up of the theft from the president’s farm”.
“Both members were approached and were given the opportunity to respond to the allegations made against them,” the report stated.
Rekhoto provided a sworn affidavit in January 2023. Rhoode, however, failed to respond to IPID’s questions, despite indicating he would do so after the State of the Nation Address.
“IPID’s investigation therefore necessitated the analysis of the available evidence gathered,” the report said.
According to IPID, Ramaphosa informed Rhoode in 2020 of the break-in involving stolen cash from animal sales.
Rhoode reportedly undertook to report the matter but failed to do so in line with Section 13(2) of the SAPS Act, which requires officers to inform their commanding officer of a crime.
Instead, he reported the matter to a subordinate. The then national police commissioner, Khehla Sitole, only became aware of the incident through media reports after his retirement.
“Major General W.P. Rhoode failed to register or ensure that a case docket of housebreaking and theft was opened,” the report found.
IPID further concluded that Rhoode carried out an “unlawful instruction” by conducting investigations outside his mandate and without opening a formal case.
The report details how Rhoode allegedly led an unofficial operation to track down suspects and recover the stolen money.
It found that suspects were interviewed at the farm and that unauthorised individuals appeared to be involved.
“The only inference one can draw is that [they were] part of the team to trace and track the suspects, thus suggesting unlawful apprehension and interrogations,” IPID said.
IPID also found that Rekhoto travelled to Cape Town in March 2020 under false pretences. Official records indicated he was attending meetings with the Presidency; however, the report found he was conducting surveillance on suspects linked to the theft.
“Constable H.H. Rekhoto misrepresented himself by stating he was attending meetings,” the report said.
He was unable to provide proof of such meetings, including minutes or attendance registers, and instead submitted draft investigation notes.
The report found that both officers falsified travel documentation and misused state resources.
IPID said Rhoode abused SAPS resources by authorising unnecessary travel and duplicating roles, resulting in “fruitless and wasteful expenditure”.
It also raised concerns about trips to Upington and Namibia involving presidential envoy Dr Bejani Chauke, who is not classified as a VIP under SAPS policy.
“Major General W.P. Rhoode invoked the president’s name repeatedly while conducting his unauthorised investigations,” the report stated.
IPID recommended disciplinary action under SAPS regulations, including charges related to failure to comply with legal obligations, conducting investigations outside official duties, mismanagement of state funds, falsification of records, and acting in an “improper, disgraceful and unacceptable manner”.
The report said that the conduct of both officers “detrimentally affects the image of the service” and warrants expedited disciplinary proceedings.
Civil society groups and anti-corruption organisations have also expressed concern over the findings, arguing that the report suggests gaps in accountability mechanisms.
Some political parties have called for action against Ramaphosa, although the president has maintained that the report alleging a cover-up has nothing to do with him.
Corruption watchdogs and civil society organisations argue that accountability should extend beyond the implicated officers, saying it cannot be that two police officials bear the consequences of the Phala Phala scandal while the president remains unaffected.
simon.majadibodu@iol.co.za
IOL Politics