South Africa's president wins bid to temporarily halt impeachment inquiry over 'Farmgate'

Image source, Bloomberg via Getty Images Image caption, Ramaphosa has been haunted by the theft of large sums of cash from his private farm in 2020

A South African court has ruled in favour of President Cyril Ramaphosa's bid to temporarily halt a parliamentary inquiry looking into whether he should be impeached over what has been dubbed the "Farmgate" scandal.

In 2022, an independent panel said Ramaphosa might have a case to answer after burglars stole huge sums of cash, hidden in a sofa, from his private farm. The president denied any wrongdoing.

At the time MPs voted against establishing an impeachment inquiry, but in May the Constitutional Court ruled that parliament had acted unlawfully by shelving the panel's report.

Ramaphosa is now challenging the findings of the panel in a separate court case to be heard in September.

The Constitutional Court's ruling in May paved the way for parliament to revive the impeachment process.

The make-up of parliament has radically changed over the last four years as Ramaphosa's African National Congress (ANC) party no longer holds a majority and governs as part of a coalition following the 2024 election.

The ruling by the Constitutional Court prompted the president to mount a legal challenge, saying the panel had "misconceived its mandate, misjudged the information placed before it and misinterpreted the four charges advanced against me".

The cash-in-the-sofa saga that just won't go away for South Africa's president

Published 6 June South African president mounts legal challenge against report that could lead to impeachment

Published 26 May On Friday, Western Cape high court judge Andre le Grange halted the parliamentary committee from proceeding with its hearings "pending the determination by this court of the applicant's review" - a reference to Ramaphosa's case against the panel.

The ruling effectively buys more time for Ramaphosa - time in which the president hopes he will be able to clear his name.

In court his legal team had argued that not halting the impeachment committee's work until his other case was ruled on could cause him irreparable reputational harm.