The Phala Phala scandal has grown far beyond a personal controversy for President Cyril Ramaphosa. It now threatens the credibility of the Presidency and deepens the ANC’s trust crisis.
At moments like these, leadership is not measured by clinging to power, but by the willingness to put country and party above personal ambition.
Ramaphosa must ask whether remaining in office is worth the damage done to his image, his party and South Africa’s fragile democracy. For that reason, he should consider stepping aside from office.
The Constitutional Court (ConCourt) on Friday thrust the Phala Phala matter back into the spotlight after ruling parliament’s 2022 decision to protect Ramaphosa from facing an impeachment inquiry was unconstitutional.
Instead of the government focusing on the crises confronting South Africans – poverty, unemployment, inequality, crime and failing service delivery – legal disputes will consume political energy, internal ANC battles, and endless debates about accountability.
South Africa cannot afford this distraction.
Those within Ramaphosa’s inner circle who insist he must remain in office are not necessarily acting out of principle.
Many are motivated by political survival. Their influence and relevance are tied to his continued stay in power. Others fear the prospect of Deputy President Paul Mashatile ascending to the top job.
Yet Ramaphosa must ask a difficult question: is remaining in office worth the damage being done to the ANC and his image?
History has repeatedly shown that political parties often decline not because of opposition parties, but because leaders fail to recognise when their continued presence becomes a liability.
The ANC is battling declining public trust, factionalism and electoral setbacks. The Phala Phala scandal risks worsening this.
One of the reasons the ANC is losing support is the perception it protects its leaders from accountability.
Time and again, South Africans have watched senior ANC figures survive scandals while the party closes ranks in the name of unity. But protecting individuals at the expense of accountability has weakened the party’s credibility.
South Africans are no longer demanding perfect leaders.
They are demanding honesty, transparency and consequences where necessary.
Ramaphosa entered office promising renewal and ethical governance after years in which corruption scandals had damaged the ANC’s reputation.
Many citizens acknowledged his efforts to stabilise institutions and restore confidence in government. But the Phala Phala controversy has undermined that reformist image and opened the door for accusations of double standards.
This moment is bigger than one individual. The ANC faces a defining choice: protect one leader at all costs, or protect the party’s credibility.
Ramaphosa himself does not need a political office to survive financially.
Unlike many politicians who cling to power because they have nowhere else to go, he built a business career before returning to politics.
That reality should make it easier for him to act on principle rather than political fear.
Stepping aside voluntarily would not necessarily amount to an admission of guilt, it could be viewed as an act of political maturity and accountability – a recognition the rule of law is sacrosanct.
Ramaphosa must also consider how history will remember him. Will he be remembered as the leader who attempted to renew the ANC but became consumed by scandal, or as the statesman who chose the party and the country over personal power?
There is dignity in knowing when to leave.
A voluntary resignation could preserve Ramaphosa’s legacy and the ANC’s integrity. More importantly, it would send a powerful message that no individual is bigger than the constitution, parliament, or the country itself.
If he fails to resign, then parliament must do what the ConCourt has instructed.
And if it leads to Ramaphosa’s impeachment, so be it.
