Chief justice tells Malema Phala Phala judgment to be delivered within a month

Chief justice Mandisa Maya has told EFF leader Julius Malema that the Constitutional Court judgment on the Phala Phala matter will be delivered within a month.

This comes after the EFF wrote to the court complaining about what it termed an unacceptable delay in the delivery of the judgment.

In a letter dated April 8, the Constitutional Court chief registrar Simone Lanique Tjamela informed Malema that they had received his letter, written in March.

“The Chief Justice has directed me to write to you as follows: Receipt of your letter dated 25 March 2026 is hereby acknowledged. The preparation of the judgment is at an advanced stage and its delivery is expected within a month,” reads the letter.

Malema had complained to the chief justice that after 776 days the court had still not delivered its judgment.

The EFF approached the Constitutional Court to challenge the decision by the National Assembly not to pursue impeachment of President Cyril Ramaphosa despite the findings of an independent inquiry that found there was prima facie evidence of wrongdoing in the scandal in which more than $500,000 (R8m) was stored, and some of it stolen, from inside a couch at Ramaphosa’s game farm, Phala Phala, in Limpopo.

In the letter, Malema told the chief justice that it had been 776 days since the EFF first approached the Constitutional Court with its court challenge, with the Constitutional Court confirming more than 659 days ago that it would hear the case, which was eventually heard more than 485 days ago.

“This delay must also be understood within a broader constitutional timeline. The matter arises from a decision of the National Assembly taken on 13 December 2022. It has now been 1,197 days since that decision, without final judicial determination by the Constitutional Court,” wrote Malema.

“This delay far exceeds not only ordinary judicial timelines but also binding judicial norms governing the performance of judicial functions. More fundamentally, this matter has now become one of the most delayed judgments in the modern history of the Constitutional Court, particularly in a case dealing directly with the conduct of the Head of State.”

Malema said he found it “deeply troubling” that a matter that involved the highest office in the land was delayed so long.

“The present delay, now exceeding 480 days post-hearing, is not merely beyond the prescribed three-month period. It is more than five times the maximum standard contemplated by the norms and standards. No explanation has been provided that could reasonably sustain a claim of ‘exceptional circumstances’ of this magnitude,” said Malema.

Malema argued that the unprecedented delay raised questions around political interference.

“The continued delay in this matter risks creating a perception that the Constitutional Court is no longer immune from political pressures. Whether justified or not, such a perception is deeply damaging. It suggests that justice may not be applied evenly, and that certain matters are treated with greater urgency than others.

“In simple terms, it begins to appear as though justice has favourites,” said Malema at the time.