The independent panel that found misconduct evidence against Ramaphosa relied on hearsay, misunderstood its constitutional mandate and used potentially unlawfully obtained evidence — including a confidential Namibian police report. Removing a president requires proof of intentional, bad-faith conduct, not speculation. Challenging a fatally flawed report in court is the legally sound move, not an evasion of accountability.
Dragging out court battles while taxpayers foot the bill looks a lot like the Zuma-era Stalingrad litigation playbook, and South Africa cannot afford a repeat. The Constitutional Court already ruled Parliament acted unlawfully by shelving this matter, so the impeachment committee must move forward regardless. Ramaphosa's innocence claim means nothing if he won't let the process run its course transparently.
© 2026 Improve the News Foundation.
All rights reserved.
Version 7.4.1