South Africans Debate State Covering Bulk of Ramaphosa’s Legal Fees in Fight Against Parliament

• President Cyril Ramaphosa's urgent court application continued to be heard before the Western Cape High Court heard on 16 July 2026
• The court also heard who was paying for the majority of Ramaphosa's legal costs in his urgent bid to halt Parliament's impeachment inquiry
• The revelation sparked mixed reactions online, as South Africans questioned who was responsible for paying for the legal fees

Byron Pillay, a Briefly News journalist, has dedicated a decade to reporting on the South African political landscape, crime, and social issues. He worked as a newspaper journalist for 10 years before transitioning to online.

WESTERN CAPE - South Africans have shared mixed reactions online after hearing that the State is funding the majority of President Cyril Ramaphosa's legal costs in his court application against Parliament.

Ramaphosa filed the urgent application to suspend the impeachment process until a full judicial review can assess the legality of an independent panel's report into the Phala Phala matter.

Read also

Opposition advocates argue Western Cape High Court cannot block Ramaphosa impeachment inquiry

The president’s legal team argued that the panel applied incorrect legal tests and relied on inadmissible hearsay in finding that there was sufficient evidence showing the President may have committed serious violations of the Constitution and anti-corruption laws.

Parliament are contesting the interdict, maintaining that halting its process undermines the separation of powers and shields the President from accountability.

State paying some of Ramaphosa’s legal fees

The case was heard before the Western Cape High Court on Wednesday, 15 July 2026 and Thursday, 16 July 2026, with a ruling expected by the end of next week (late July 2026).

During the proceedings, it was confirmed that the State is paying most of the President’s legal costs.

Ramaphosa’s counsel, Advocate Wim Trengove SC, made the disclosure after an opposing lawyer said the president was funding the case privately.

“The bulk of his costs are apparently paid by the state, and the president pays some of them. I have no greater detail than that,” Trengove said.

The Phala Phala scandal explained

The impeachment process traces back to the 2020 theft of an estimated $580,000 in foreign currency that had been concealed inside a sofa at Ramaphosa's private Phala Phala game farm in Limpopo. An independent panel subsequently found that the President had a case to answer, but the African National Congress used its majority to dismiss the panel’s report.

Read also

Phala Phala inquiry: ATM's Vuyo Zungula accuses Ramaphosa of trying to evade accountability

The Constitutional Court ruled that the decision was unlawful, paving the way for impeachment proceedings to continue. Ramaphosa is now attempting to prevent that from happening.

South Africans are divided over who should pay

The disclosure that the State is absorbing most of his legal fees has drawn sharp criticism, with many questioning whether public funds should be used to defend a president in proceedings arising from activity at his private property.

Sandile Nzuza wrote:

"The law allows that. Remember, some of the allegations are that he abused his powers as President. That alone opens up for him to defend himself as President."

Mzamani Wa Mlambya Fayifi agreed:

"He's defending himself as a president; it's not a personal matter."

Others were less sympathetic.

Amashami Shamy asked:

"How does the state end up paying for a private farm's legal fees? Make it make sense.”

Sputla Tdi questioned:

"Why should state money be involved in this case? This is a Ramaphosa offence in his private life, mos."

Bongani Mbanjwa remarked:

"President Ramaphosa can easily afford to pay for this, but he is enjoying his perks as State President. The case is about a State President."

Read also

Vusimuzi 'Cat' Matlala's Madlanga Commission of Inquiry testimony postponed until September

ANC backs Cyril Ramaphosa over Phala Phala decision

In another article, the ANC's National Executive Committee (NEC) met to discuss the Constitutional Court's recent ruling on Phala Phala.

Briefly News reported that President Cyril Ramaphosa was not present at the meeting, as he was the subject of the discussions that were taking place.

South Africans took to social media to share mixed reactions to the NEC's resolution that the party stood behind the president's decision.

Source: Briefly News