The MK Party has intensified its push to remove President Cyril Ramaphosa from office after the Constitutional Court ruling linked to the Phala Phala matter.

The party has written to National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, requesting that a motion of no confidence against Ramaphosa be heard in Parliament.

The move follows the court’s finding that Parliament’s 2022 decision not to adopt the Section 89 panel report was irrational and unconstitutional.

That report dealt with the theft of foreign currency at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm in 2020 and found that he may have breached his oath of office.

Protest Outside Africa’s Travel Indaba

MK Party members also staged a protest outside the Durban ICC, where Africa’s Travel Indaba was taking place.

Protesters wore party regalia, sang, danced and carried placards calling for Ramaphosa to resign. Some signs read “Cyril Ramaphosa Must Resign”, “Ramaphosa Must Fall” and “Phala Phala Rogue: Step Aside Cyril”.

Gcina Dlamini, an MK Party eThekwini region task team member, said the party wanted to show South Africans and the world that Ramaphosa should leave office after the court ruling.

He accused the ANC and its president of using their parliamentary majority to undermine the rule of law.

Impeachment Process Back in Focus

The Constitutional Court ordered that the Section 89 Independent Panel report be referred directly to an Impeachment Committee.

In the 2022 vote, 214 MPs voted against the report while 148 voted in favour. The court found that Parliament acted unconstitutionally when the ANC used its majority to block the formation of the committee.

If Ramaphosa faces an impeachment vote, a two-thirds majority will be needed to remove him from office.

A no-confidence motion is different. It requires a simple majority of 50% plus one to succeed.

Secret Ballot Request

The MK Party wants the no-confidence motion to be decided by secret ballot.

Didiza must first decide whether the motion will proceed in Parliament.

Ramaphosa has said he will not resign. He said his legal team believes the panel report can be reviewed on several grounds, including alleged errors of law and unsupported factual conclusions.

He also argued that resigning would pre-empt a constitutional process and give credibility to a report he believes is flawed.