GOOD Statement by Brett Herron,
GOOD Secretary-General
08 May 2026
Several institutions have investigated aspects of the pile of Phala Phala cash, its alleged theft, and subsequent events, and have cleared the President of wrongdoing, including the Public Protector, the South African Reserve Bank, and the NPA.
Although the President has been cleared, the investigations have technically left ordinary South Africans without a clearly understandable version of events.
Parliament’s mismanagement of the matter has compounded the secrecy and controversy. First, parliament appointed an independent panel, headed by a former Chief Justice, to probe whether the President had a case to answer. But when the panel recommended the President be impeached, MPs voted to bury the report.
Despite all the investigations, technical processes, explanations, and millions of words expended on the matter, a veil of mystery continues to surround the case. What the GOOD Party said when details of the case first emerged still stands: It was, and is, in the President and the nation’s best interest that he takes South Africans into his confidence.
The Constitutional Court today ordered Parliament to proceed with the impeachment recommended by the Section 89 Independent Panel.
Parliament’s blushes would have been avoided had MPs had the integrity to step out of their binary lanes and adopt the GOOD Party’s compromise motion in December 2022 that parliament accept the report while delaying commencement of impeachment proceedings pending the outcome of the review the President said he would launch.
After ANC MPs voted to bin the report, just days before the ANC elective conference where he went on to retain his party’s presidency, the President presumably saw no need to take the report on review.
The combination of parliamentarians shutting down the report and the President electing not to review it, left the door open for the EFF to approach the Concourt – and now claim the glory of holding the President accountable.
If the President has a complete set of answers to the questions about what transpired on his farm, and after the alleged break in, he has nothing to lose from a parliamentary impeachment process (besides short-term embarrassment) and everything to gain from public transparency. If he is impeached, it will define his legacy.
Either way, the Court’s ruling is yet another setback for public trust in political representatives. The matter will cast a deep shadow over local government elections later this year.
Media Enquiries: media@forgood.org.za