Former National Assembly speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula has admitted that the ANC abused its parliamentary majority during the controversial Section 89 vote on the Phala Phala scandal, saying she now “hangs [her] head in shame” over how the matter was handled.
Speaking in an interview released on Monday morning on African Renaissance podcast, hosted by former EFF MP Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, Mapisa-Nqakula reflected on the December 2022 parliamentary vote that shielded President Cyril Ramaphosa from an impeachment inquiry linked to the Phala Phala farm scandal.
Her remarks come just days after the Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled on Friday that Parliament acted unlawfully when it blocked adoption of the Section 89 independent panel report and ordered lawmakers to reconsider the matter.
In the interview, Mapisa-Nqakula recounted how ANC members were instructed in caucus not to support the panel’s findings before the vote took place.
“Our secretary-general of the organisation, my comrade, [Fikile] Mbalula, came to caucus and said, ‘Today is D-Day. We are going to discuss the report and we are going to vote’,” she said.
“But I want to say to the caucus of the ANC, none of you will vote in favour of this report.”
Asked directly by Ndlozi whether the ANC had abused its majority in Parliament, Mapisa-Nqakula replied: “I think we did.”
“I hate to say this. We did, and I’m saying this with all sincerity and honesty, that it was not necessary to walk into a caucus and say, ‘You will do what I want you to do.’”
She said the governing party should have approached the matter differently as South Africa’s constitutional democracy matured.
“We could have been more matured in the manner our democracy is maturing. Constitutional Court has ruled. I hang my head in shame because we could have done better,” she said.
The remarks are likely to reignite political debate around the ANC’s handling of the Phala Phala matter, which has dogged Ramaphosa since former spy boss Arthur Fraser opened a criminal complaint in 2022.
The scandal centred on the theft of large sums of foreign currency concealed at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo and allegations that the crime was not properly reported to authorities.
An independent Section 89 panel chaired by retired chief justice Sandile Ngcobo found in 2022 that there may have been prima facie grounds for Ramaphosa to answer for serious violations of the Constitution and the law.
However, ANC MPs used their parliamentary majority to vote against adopting the report, effectively halting the impeachment process.
Friday’s Constitutional Court judgment revived the issue by finding that Parliament had failed to properly fulfil its constitutional obligations when it dismissed the panel report.
The court ordered the National Assembly to reconsider the report and the impeachment process afresh, potentially reopening one of the biggest political controversies of Ramaphosa’s presidency.
Mapisa-Nqakula’s comments are significant because she presided over the National Assembly during the vote and was responsible for overseeing proceedings at the time.
Her acknowledgment that the ANC improperly wielded its majority adds fresh weight to long-standing opposition claims that Parliament failed to hold the president accountable because of party political interests rather than constitutional principle.
Meanwhile, fresh forensic evidence emerging from the ongoing Phala Phala criminal case suggests significantly more money may have been stolen from Ramaphosa’s farm than previously disclosed.
According to reports, a Hawks financial investigation presented in the Modimolle Regional Court found that burglary suspect Imanuwela David moved or spent nearly R15 million in cash-linked transactions after the 2020 break-in — far exceeding the roughly R9.5 million linked to the $580 000 Ramaphosa said was stolen.
The evidence, which includes luxury car purchases, large cash deposits and property transactions, has intensified scrutiny over the true scale of the burglary as Parliament prepares to revisit the impeachment process.
