STOP THE POLITICAL GRANDSTANDING—THE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IS NOT A VERDICT AGAINST PRESIDENT RAMAPHOSA

In the wake of the Constitutional Court’s judgment in Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others [2026] ZACC 17, there has been an unseemly rush by certain political parties and individuals; those who have made it their mission to vilify President Cyril Ramaphosa to demand his resignation.

Let us be clear: this is nothing less than a deliberate misreading of the Court’s ruling, a cynical exercise in political expediency, and a dangerous distortion of constitutional principles for the sake of cheap political points.

The judgment is crystal clear. The Constitutional Court did not find President Ramaphosa guilty of any wrongdoing. It did not recommend his suspension, nor did it order his removal from office. What the Court did was to affirm the supremacy of process: it found that the National Assembly, through its unconstitutional use of Rule 129I, prematurely blocked an impeachment inquiry that ought to have proceeded. It restored the proper constitutional channel for accountability, nothing more, nothing less.

Let me re-emphasise this crucial point: the grounds of the judgment simply do not and cannot justify any calls for President Ramaphosa’s resignation. The Court has not made any finding against the President on the merits of the allegations. It has not pronounced on his innocence or guilt. Instead, it has ordered that the correct constitutional process be followed, ensuring that any inquiry into the President’s conduct takes place in the open, through the Impeachment Committee, as required by law.

For those who now claim that this procedural correction is proof of Ramaphosa’s guilt, I ask: Have you read the judgment? The Court’s reasoning is rooted in upholding the rule of law, ensuring that allegations are properly investigated, not in condemning the President. It is a call to due process, not to mob justice.

Let us not forget, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is not negotiable. It is the bedrock of our democracy. The President, like any citizen, is entitled to defend himself in the proper forum, the Impeachment Committee, which will now conduct a thorough inquiry.

To demand his resignation before this process is completed is to betray the very constitutional values we claim to uphold.

The ANC, and all who respect the Constitution, must reject attempts by the EFF, ATM, and other opportunistic detractors to weaponise this judgment for political grandstanding. Their narrative that the mere existence of a prima facie case is grounds for resignation is not only legally baseless, but also deeply irresponsible. It undermines the credibility of our institutions and sets a perilous precedent for future leaders.

South Africa is not served by knee-jerk reactions or manufactured outrage. We are served by reason, integrity, and respect for the rule of law. Let the Impeachment Committee do its work. Let the facts be tested, not twisted. Let us resist the temptation to turn every procedural ruling into a political crisis.

I warn those who seek to exploit this judgment for their own ends: the people of South Africa are watching. They will see through your attempts at misdirection and political opportunism. The Constitution protects us all from arbitrary action, including the President. Let us not surrender that protection in the name of expediency.

President Ramaphosa remains entitled to the presumption of innocence and to a fair process. It is legally indefensible and constitutionally reckless to demand his resignation on the basis of this judgment.

Calls for his resignation are premature, unfounded, and portray a reckless disregard for constitutional democracy.

Let us uphold the judgment’s true meaning: accountability, yes; political lynching, no.