The streets of Johannesburg’s central district rarely witness scenes as politically charged as the march that unfolded on November 28, 2025.

Under gray skies and relentless rain, thousands of supporters of the Economic Freedom Fighters marched from Mary Fitzgerald Square toward one of the most powerful institutions in the country—the Constitutional Court.

The red berets of the EFF created a moving wave of color across the wet streets of Braamfontein.

Their chants echoed through the city.

“Phala Phala must fall!”

To supporters, the protest represented something deeper than party politics.

It symbolized frustration with a system they believe has delayed accountability for far too long.

At the center of the storm is one of the most controversial scandals in modern South African politics.

The Phala Phala farm scandal first erupted in 2022, but its origins trace back to 2020 when millions of U.S.

dollars were allegedly hidden inside furniture at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s private farm in Limpopo.

According to reports, the money was linked to the sale of buffalo at the farm.

But the situation quickly spiraled into controversy when it was revealed that the cash had been stored inside a couch and later stolen during a break-in.

The revelations immediately triggered serious questions.

Why was such a large amount of foreign currency kept at a private residence?

Was the money properly declared to the South African Revenue Service (SARS)?

Was the South African Reserve Bank informed about the foreign currency transaction?

And perhaps most troubling of all—why was the theft reportedly only reported long after it occurred?

To critics of the president, the situation looked deeply suspicious.

To supporters, it was a private business transaction that had been exaggerated for political gain.

But the political consequences were unavoidable.

Opposition parties demanded investigations, and eventually Parliament became involved.

A Section 89 independent panel was established to examine whether Ramaphosa may have violated the Constitution.

Section 89 of the South African Constitution deals with impeachment—the removal of a president for serious misconduct or violations of the law.

When the panel delivered its findings, it concluded there was enough information suggesting that Ramaphosa may have questions to answer.

That finding triggered a vote in Parliament on whether to establish a full impeachment inquiry.

But the process collapsed.

Members of Parliament voted against proceeding with the impeachment inquiry, effectively shutting down the process.

The EFF and other opposition parties were furious.

They argued that the vote protected the president rather than protecting constitutional accountability.

Soon afterward, the EFF took the battle to the courts.

The party filed an application asking the Constitutional Court to review Parliament’s decision to reject the Section 89 process.

Their argument was simple: Parliament had failed to properly hold the president accountable.

But then something unexpected happened.

Silence.

Months passed without a ruling.

Then more months.

According to critics, the delay stretched far beyond the time typically expected for Constitutional Court decisions.

Some legal commentators noted that the court’s own internal guidelines generally aim for judgments to be delivered within roughly three months after hearings conclude.

Yet in this case, more than a year passed without an official judgment.

For the EFF, that delay became the central issue driving the protest.

Speaking to the crowd and media, EFF spokesperson Thembi Msane argued that the delay itself was damaging public trust.

“The longer this judgment is withheld,” she said, “the more people begin to question whether the judiciary is being influenced or pressured.”

Her statement tapped into a growing concern among some political observers: whether prolonged silence in politically sensitive cases can create the perception that institutions are avoiding controversial decisions.

Another EFF leader, Sinawo Thambo, pushed the argument even further during the protest.

He reminded supporters that the party filed its court papers in November 2024, meaning the case had been before the Constitutional Court for over twelve months without a final ruling.

“You cannot protect the president forever,” Thambo declared.

His words electrified the crowd gathered outside the court.

For the EFF, the stakes are enormous.

If the Constitutional Court rules that Parliament acted unlawfully when it rejected the Section 89 process, it could reopen the possibility of a full impeachment inquiry against President Ramaphosa.

Such an outcome would trigger one of the most dramatic constitutional confrontations in South Africa’s democratic history.

But there are other possibilities as well.

Legal analysts have outlined three potential outcomes from the court.

The first possibility is that the court agrees with the EFF and rules that Parliament’s handling of the impeachment process was flawed or unconstitutional.

In that case, Parliament could be ordered to revisit the matter and possibly initiate a new inquiry.

The second possibility is that the court dismisses the case entirely.

Such a ruling would effectively close the legal chapter of the Phala Phala controversy, allowing Ramaphosa to continue his presidency without further constitutional proceedings related to the issue.

The third possibility is the one critics fear the most: continued delay.

In the world of constitutional law, silence can sometimes carry its own consequences.

If a ruling comes too late, political circumstances may change, rendering the decision less impactful.

For example, if Ramaphosa’s presidential term progresses too far before any ruling emerges, the practical window for impeachment could narrow significantly.

This is why the EFF describes the moment as a “last stand for accountability.”

To the protesters gathered outside the Constitutional Court, the issue goes beyond the details of a farm robbery or hidden cash.

It touches on something more fundamental: public trust in democratic institutions.

When leaders are accused of misconduct, citizens expect clear answers.

When courts take extended periods to rule on politically sensitive matters, the absence of clarity can fuel suspicion and anger.

As the march concluded, protesters gathered outside the iconic building that houses the Constitutional Court—South Africa’s highest guardian of constitutional law.

Their chants filled the air.

“Release the judgment!”

Whether the justices inside the court will respond soon remains unknown.

But one reality is already clear.

The Phala Phala scandal, once dismissed by some as a passing controversy, has evolved into a powerful political symbol.

For supporters of the EFF, it represents a test of whether the rule of law applies equally to everyone—even the president.

And until the Constitutional Court delivers its long-awaited decision, that question will continue echoing through South Africa’s political landscape.

Because in a democracy, silence from the highest court can become as powerful—and as controversial—as any ruling it eventually delivers.