The president is in court to take out the document that put him in front of a Section 89 committee.
From today through Friday the Western Cape High Court hears his application to review and set aside the Independent Panel report of 30 November 2022. SABC had the roll opening at 10:00. The panel, chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, found *prima facie* evidence that Ramaphosa may have breached his oath over the 9 February 2020 theft of about $580 000 in foreign currency from a sofa at Phala Phala, his Limpopo farm.
That is a panel finding. It is not a criminal verdict. Do not write it as one.
Ramaphosa’s papers say the panel misconceived its mandate, misjudged the material, misread the four charges, used untested hearsay and failed to test what it was given. The Presidency has not, in the public grounds, asked the court to decide whether the money was stolen. It has asked the court to scrap the report that Parliament used to build an impeachment committee.
Timeline is short if you ignore the years. Farm theft, 2020. Panel report, November 2022. National Assembly declined to send it to a committee that December. Constitutional Court, 8 May 2026, sent it back. Ramaphosa launched the review in May. On 24 July Judges André le Grange, Matthew Francis and Diane Davis split 2–1 and interdicted public hearings under Rule 129M until this review is determined. MK and UAT lost leave to appeal on 28 August. The Constitutional Court had already refused a shortcut.
The committee is not dead. It is blocked from public evidence. On Tuesday it withdrew its recommendation of Adv Thandazani Madonsela SC as evidence leader after the president objected. It meets again on 8 September to pick a name. Chairperson Gana’s public line: the interdict falls when this court delivers its ruling, either way.
Do not invent what the Bench said after 10:00. Argument is three days. Judgment comes later.
This review tests the legal footing of the Ngcobo report, not the sofa. If the report falls, the committee loses the paper it was built on and Parliament would have to decide whether to start again. If the report stands, the July interdict lapses on judgment and public hearings can resume. Delay is already the fact.
Section 89 is the Assembly’s tool for a sitting president. While this application runs, that tool is on paper and not in a hearing room. Trust does not rise because a diary is full. It rises when evidence is led or the court explains why it cannot be.
* Does the court give any directions this week, or only reserve?
* When judgment lands, does the committee restart its evidence-leader fight from 8 September or wait for reasons?
* If the report is set aside, does the National Assembly vote a fresh process or let Phala Phala die in the file?