In brief
A South African court has granted President Cyril Ramaphosa a temporary halt to the parliamentary committee that was poised to investigate his alleged involvement in the 'Farmgate' robbery. The ruling follows a year‑long legal battle that began when burglars stole cash from his private farm in 2020, a story that became public after an ex‑spy chief exposed the theft. The Constitutional Court earlier declared that parliament unlawfully shelved an independent panel’s findings, paving the way for an impeachment inquiry, but Ramaphosa’s legal team argued that proceeding before his new case would cause irreparable damage to his reputation. The recent injunction, issued by a Western Cape judge, means the committee must pause until Ramaphosa’s separate court case is decided. Political parties have mixed reactions: the Democratic Alliance sees the ruling as a pause, the opposition MK accuses the president of using the courts to stall investigations, while the ANC defends the move as part of a broader political struggle. The dispute highlights the fragile politics of an ANC coalition government and the enduring impact of the Farmgate scandal on South Africa’s political landscape.
A South African court has ruled in favour of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s bid to temporarily halt a parliamentary inquiry into the alleged theft of large sums of cash from his private farm, known as the ‘Farmgate’ scandal.
The story began in 2020 when burglars broke into Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm in Limpopo and removed at least £430,000 (US$580,000) that had been concealed inside a sofa. The theft only came to light two years later, when former spy chief Arthur Fraser, a former ally of former president Jacob Zuma, released an explosive dossier to police accusing the president of hiding the robbery from authorities and breaching exchange control laws.
An independent panel was set up in 2022 and concluded that Ramaphosa “might have a case to answer”. Although MPs had initially voted against establishing an impeachment inquiry, the Constitutional Court in May 2024 declared that parliament had acted unlawfully by shelving the panel’s report. The court’s ruling cleared the door to revive the impeachment process.
Ramaphosa’s legal team, however, filed a separate court case challenging the panel’s findings. They argue that the panel misconceived its mandate, misjudged the evidence presented, and wrongly interpreted the four charges advanced against him.
On Friday, Western Cape High Court judge Andre le Grange issued an injunction that halted the parliamentary committee pending the determination by the court of Ramaphosa’s review case. The ruling allows the president more time to clear his name before the impeachment inquiry can proceed.
Reactions to the injunction have been divided. The Democratic Alliance, a coalition partner in parliament, said the ruling was not unexpected but that it did not stop the committee from carrying out preparatory work. The opposition party uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) accuses the president of using the courts to stall the investigation into the farm robbery. Meanwhile, the ANC applauds the decision, urging other parties not to engage in what it calls “politically motivated distortions” during the ongoing legal process.
Ramaphosa issued a brief statement acknowledging the court’s decision and expressing respect for the judiciary’s role. He remains determined to demonstrate his innocence through the legal channel. The case is set for a full hearing in September, while the impeachment inquiry sits on hold.
