By Nco Dube | 12 May 2026

South Africa has been told a comforting story about Cyril Ramaphosa. A story of a patient reformer. A story of a man who carries the Constitution in his breast pocket like a sacred text. A story of a leader who would rather lose power than betray the founding values of the Republic. It is a story polished by speeches, softened by tone, and repeated until it settled into the national imagination like a familiar hymn.

But the Phala Phala scandal has torn through that hymn like a sudden gust of wind. The melody is gone. What remains is a harsher truth. Ramaphosa’s constitutionalism is not a steady flame. It flickers. It dims. It brightens only when the shadows move too close. It is a light he switches on when accountability approaches, and switches off when the room feels safe again.

The President has every right to due process. That is not the question. The question is why he remembers that right only when the storm begins to circle him. The Section 89 Panel Report has existed for almost four years. It raised serious questions about his conduct. It cast doubt on his version of events. It pointed to contradictions, irregularities, and unexplained decisions. It placed the President beneath a cloud that any true constitutionalist would have confronted immediately.

Ramaphosa did not confront it. He waited. He watched. He filed a court challenge, then abandoned it the moment the ANC caucus used its majority to bury the report in Parliament. The threat dissolved. The cloud remained. The President did not seem troubled by that cloud. He did not insist on judicial clarity. He did not demand a review. He did not fight to clear his name. He simply walked forward as if the sky above him were clear.

This is not the behaviour of a man who believes the report is flawed. It is the behaviour of a man who believes the report is dangerous only when it has consequences.

The Constitutional Court revives the report and the President feels the ground shift

The Constitutional Court has now ruled that Parliament acted unlawfully when it voted the report down. The Section 89 Panel Report rises again. It must go to an impeachment committee. The process Ramaphosa thought he had escaped returns like a tide he hoped would never turn.

And suddenly the President remembers his right to challenge the report.

This is not constitutional devotion. This is the reflex of a man who feels the ground shifting beneath him.

If the report was so defective that it required judicial review, why did he not pursue that review when he first filed it. Why did he abandon it. Why did he tolerate the report’s existence for four years. Why did he not insist on clearing his name when the matter was politically dormant.

The answer is simple. He did not challenge the report because he did not need to. The ANC caucus had neutralised it. The political cost was low. The legal risk was dormant. The scandal was manageable.

Only now, when the report threatens him again, does he rediscover his constitutional voice.

A constitutionalist in public, a tactician in private

Ramaphosa has always spoken about the Constitution with the calm authority of a man who believes every word. He has wrapped himself in the language of principle. He has presented himself as the antidote to the chaos of the Zuma years. Yet his conduct tells a different story. He has complied with constitutional provisions only when forced. He has respected court rulings only when they align with his political interests. He has invoked due process only when it shields him from scrutiny.

This is selective constitutionalism. It is the same erosion that marked the previous era, although expressed with a gentler voice and a steadier hand. The tone is different. The substance is not.

The Constitution is not a technical manual. It is a moral compass. It demands more than minimal compliance. It demands leadership. It demands transparency. It demands a president who is above reproach not only in law but in posture and principle.

Ramaphosa has failed that test. He has failed it quietly. He has failed it consistently. He has failed it with the confidence of a man who believes the country will forgive him because he speaks softly.

The spirit of the Constitution requires courage, not convenience

The President’s defenders will argue that he is simply exercising his rights. That he is entitled to challenge the report. That due process must run its course. All of this is true. It is also a veil.

The Constitution requires a president who confronts allegations directly. A president who does not wait for the walls to close in before acting. A president who does not treat accountability as a threat but as a duty. A president who understands that leadership is measured not by how well one avoids scrutiny but by how one responds to it.

Ramaphosa has shown none of this. He has shown that he will act only when cornered. He has shown that he will invoke the Constitution only when it serves him. He has shown that he will tolerate unresolved questions about his conduct for years, as long as those questions do not threaten his position.

This is not constitutional leadership. It is constitutional evasion.

Selective constitutionalism is a slow poison

Ramaphosa’s behaviour has consequences beyond his own reputation. It corrodes public trust. It weakens the credibility of the presidency. It reinforces the perception that accountability in South Africa is selective and negotiable. It teaches future leaders that constitutional compliance is optional until it becomes unavoidable.

It also places the ANC in a corner. The party must now decide whether to protect the President again or allow the impeachment process to proceed. Either choice carries political cost. But that cost is not borne by the President alone. It is borne by the country.

Selective constitutionalism is not a private act. It is a slow poison. It seeps into institutions. It distorts political behaviour. It signals to the public that the Constitution is a tool for the powerful, not a shield for the nation.

A president cannot lead a constitutional democracy with conditional principles

Ramaphosa cannot claim to be a constitutionalist while behaving like a political tactician. He cannot claim to respect the rule of law while abandoning legal processes when they no longer serve him. He cannot claim to value accountability while resisting it at every turn.

He cannot have it both ways.

If he truly believed the Section 89 report was flawed, he should have pursued judicial review from the beginning. If he truly believed in transparency, he should have welcomed the opportunity to clear his name. If he truly believed in constitutional accountability, he should have confronted the allegations directly.

Instead, he waited until the report became a threat again.

This is not the conduct of a constitutional being. It is the conduct of a man who has mistaken political survival for leadership.

South Africa deserves a president who treats the Constitution as a principle, not a refuge

True constitutionalism requires courage. It requires a willingness to face scrutiny even when it is uncomfortable. It requires a commitment to accountability even when it is politically risky. It requires a president who leads by example.

Ramaphosa has shown that he remembers his rights only when accountability knocks. He has shown that he invokes the Constitution only when it shields him. He has shown that he treats constitutionalism as a refuge, not a principle.

South Africa deserves better. The Constitution demands better. History will judge him not by the rights he invoked but by the accountability he avoided.

(Dube is a noted Political Economist, Businessperson, and Social Commentator whose insights are regularly featured on Ukhozi FM and in various newspapers. For further reading and perspectives, visit: http://www.ncodube.blog)