This article analyses the landmark May 2026 ruling by the Constitutional Court, which fundamentally affects presidential accountability and the impeachment process.
The court’s decision reopens impeachment proceedings against the president, focusing on the farm matter and parliament’s obligations under the constitution.
Section 89(1) of the 1996 constitution permits the National Assembly to remove the president by a two-thirds majority for serious violations of the constitution, serious misconduct, or inability to perform the functions of office.
The Executive Members’ Ethics Act and Code further require the president to disclose financial interests and to act with integrity.
The National Assembly’s rules (129A–129R) set out a three-stage impeachment process: an independent panel review, an impeachment committee inquiry and a final assembly vote.
The two-thirds majority threshold is intended to prevent partisan removals while ensuring executive accountability.
In June 2022, a criminal complaint was filed against our president over the alleged theft of foreign currency at his farm and the Presidential Protection Unit’s subsequent handling of the matter.
This prompted a section 89(1) impeachment motion and the formation of an independent panel chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo.
The Ngcobo panel found preliminary evidence that the president may have violated the executive ethics code, notably by failing to report the theft and allegedly misusing state resources.
The panel recommended further inquiry, but in December 2022, the majority in parliament used Rule 129I to vote down the referral to an impeachment committee, effectively halting the process.
The two opposition political parties challenged the parliamentary decision.
In May 2026, the Constitutional Court, led by Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, unanimously ruled that parliament’s vote and Rule 129I were unconstitutional.
The court’s reasoning centred on two findings:
- Procedural integrity and rationality: Rule 129I permitted parliament to block a full impeachment inquiry by a political vote, introducing a partisan filter into what should be an evidence-driven process. The court held that procedural autonomy did not permit parliament to override constitutional obligations. The court found that using rule 129I to block further inquiry, despite prima facie evidence, was irrational and inconsistent with the purpose of section 89.
- Comparative jurisprudence: The judgment cited US and Kenyan precedents, noting that though impeachment is a political process, constitutional standards and procedural fairness remain subject to judicial review. SA precedent (notably the Nkandla judgment) affirms that parliament must hold the executive accountable and cannot allow majority interests to override constitutional duties.
The 2026 political landscape differs significantly from 2022.
The former liberation movement no longer holds a parliamentary majority, controlling only 159 of 400 seats.
A two-thirds majority (267 votes) is required to remove a president, so the movement’s caucus could block removal if united.
However, coalition partners have committed to evidence-based participation in the impeachment committee.
With upcoming local elections, parties face tension between institutional integrity and political strategy.
The president’s intention to review the panel report could be interpreted in different ways, though it is legally permissible.
The judgment’s key contribution is to reaffirm that Section 89 is not discretionary: parliament must follow constitutionally mandated accountability procedures.
This strengthens transformative constitutionalism and confirms that legislative procedure must further, not frustrate, accountability.
Yet several questions remain:
- What standard of proof should the impeachment committee apply? The independent panel’s threshold is prima facie evidence, but the committee must apply a higher standard before making its recommendation.
- Does a presidential legal challenge to the panel report suspend the committee’s work? Courts have generally not allowed executive litigation to impede accountability, but further clarification may be needed.
- Can the two-thirds vote requirement allow political factors to trump legal findings, even after a committee recommends removal?
These issues highlight both the strengths and the practical limitations of the ruling.
Prosecutorial independence and transparency are important for public confidence, as their absence erodes public trust.
In this context, parliamentary accountability is the last institutional safeguard when prosecutorial mechanisms fail or appear compromised.
The Constitutional Court’s decision marks a milestone for SA constitutionalism.
It confirms that presidential or executive accountability is a constitutional imperative, not a matter for parliamentary discretion.
Section 89 of the Executive Members’ Ethics Act, together with the National Assembly rules, provides a structured, evidence-based process to ensure accountability and uphold the rule of law.
While the political outcome of impeachment remains uncertain and depends on coalition dynamics and committee findings, the court has ensured that institutional accountability mechanisms cannot be circumvented for political expediency.
This ruling strengthens the constitutional order, demonstrating the resilience and functionality of SA’s democracy.
May God bless SA’s constitutional democracy, protect its state institutions and preserve its resources and its people.
The rule of law, order, and unity among citizens will guarantee our country’s sovereignty.
Advocate Mlandu Z Kona is a governance and ethics practitioner, traditional leader, public sector executive and legal professional, writing in his personal capacity
Follow The Herald WhatsApp channel today and stay connected to the stories shaping our world.
The Herald
