EFF Petitions Chief Justice Over Unprecedented 485-Day Delay in Constitutional Court’s Phala Phala Judgment

Julius Malema has written to Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, demanding reasons for the record-breaking delay in the Constitutional Court’s Phala Phala ruling.

By: AXL Media

Published: Mar 26, 2026, 4:34 AM EDT

Source: The information in this article was sourced from EWN

Escalating Pressure on the Judiciary

The Economic Freedom Fighters have intensified their legal and political campaign against what they describe as an "unprecedented and inexplicable" delay by the Constitutional Court. In a detailed four-page letter delivered to Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, EFF leader Julius Malema expressed grave concern over the court's failure to deliver a verdict on the Phala Phala matter. The case, which was heard in November 2024, has now surpassed 485 days without a resolution—a timeline that far exceeds standard judicial norms and has sparked intense national debate over judicial independence.

The Constitutional Core of the Phala Phala Dispute

The legal challenge centers on a December 2022 decision by the National Assembly to reject an independent panel's report. That panel, led by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, found prima facie evidence that President Cyril Ramaphosa may have committed serious violations of the Constitution and his oath of office. The allegations involve the storage and subsequent theft of $560,000 in undeclared foreign currency from his Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo. The EFF is asking the apex court to review and set aside Parliament's decision, arguing that the legislative body failed in its constitutional duty to hold the executive accountable.

A Breach of Judicial Norms and Standards

In his correspondence to Justice Maya, Malema highlighted the "Norms and Standards for the Performance of Judicial Functions," which generally mandate that judgments be handed down within three months of a hearing. With the delay now exceeding five times that duration, the EFF contends that the lack of an explanation from the court is damaging the image of the judiciary. Malema argued that the silence creates a public perception that the court may be susceptible to political pressure, particularly given the high-stakes nature of a case involving the sitting Head of State.