Julius Malema has wasted no time sharpening the political knife after the Constitutional Court handed down its ruling on the Phala Phala matter, saying President Cyril Ramaphosa should consider stepping aside. In a blunt interview with SABC News on Thursday, the Economic Freedom Fighters leader said plainly: “I would advise President Ramaphosa to resign.”
The comments land at a moment of fresh pressure for the President, after the apex court found the earlier Phala Phala parliamentary vote to have been unconstitutional and sent the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration. For Ramaphosa, that means the issue he has tried to weather for months is once again front and centre in South Africa’s political arena.
Malema’s response was unsurprising to anyone who has followed the EFF’s approach to the scandal. The party has consistently argued that Ramaphosa must be held accountable over the controversy at his Phala Phala game farm, where large sums of foreign currency were allegedly stolen in 2020. The matter has since become one of the most damaging political battles of Ramaphosa’s presidency.
What makes the latest development especially significant is not just the court ruling itself, but the timing. The Constitutional Court ruling on the Phala Phala matter arrives as the President already faces a hostile opposition benches, internal tensions within the ANC, and renewed questions about his authority. Malema’s call for resignation will only deepen the noise around the Presidency.
For the EFF, this is familiar territory. The party has built much of its political identity on confronting the ruling elite, and Ramaphosa has remained one of its favourite targets. Malema, who knows the ANC’s political machinery better than most, has repeatedly framed the Phala Phala saga as a matter of principle, not just politics. In his view, the President’s position has long been untenable.
As we reported earlier, the EFF had been waiting for the court’s ruling with clear expectations that the matter would be reopened in some form. Now that the Parliamentary vote has been struck down, the road ahead is uncertain, but the pressure on the Speaker and MPs will be immediate. Parliament will need to revisit a matter that has already inflamed public debate and deepened divisions in the political class.
Malema’s call adds new heat to the Phala Phala political storm
The Phala Phala scandal has never been just about money. It has become a test of trust, transparency and the standards South Africans expect from the country’s highest office. That is why Malema’s demand carries weight far beyond a political soundbite. It taps into a wider public frustration with leaders who appear insulated from consequences.
The EFF leader’s language was unambiguous, and that matters. By saying he would advise Ramaphosa to resign, Malema has positioned himself as one of the strongest voices insisting that the President’s moral authority is eroding. Whether that view is shared across the political spectrum is another matter, but it will certainly resonate with voters already sceptical of the ANC’s handling of the controversy.
It is also important to note that the Constitutional Court did not itself force Ramaphosa out of office. Instead, it dealt with the legal and parliamentary process surrounding the original vote. But in politics, perception often matters as much as procedure. The optics of a top court ruling against the way Parliament handled the issue will be read by many as a serious blow to the President.
For Ramaphosa’s supporters, the argument will be that due process must continue and that the court ruling does not amount to a finding of guilt against the President. For his critics, however, the latest judgment is further evidence that the Phala Phala matter continues to hang over him and weaken his standing at a time when South Africa is grappling with service delivery failures, economic strain and deep public anger.
The President has tried in recent months to project stability and focus, particularly as the country heads through another difficult political season. But this ruling, and Malema’s immediate response to it, ensures the issue will not disappear quietly. If anything, it has returned with more force.
Ramaphosa now faces not just a legal and parliamentary headache, but a renewed political attack from one of his most persistent opponents. And in South African politics, when Julius Malema turns up the volume, the ripple effects are rarely small.
For now, the question is no longer whether the Phala Phala matter is over. It is how Parliament will handle the court’s decision, and whether the renewed scrutiny will once again place Cyril Ramaphosa’s presidency under a harsher national spotlight. As matters stand, Malema has made his view crystal clear: the pressure is back, and so is the call for the President to go.