-From Mbeki To Zuma, South Africa’s Presidents Have Struggled To Leave Power On Their Own Terms. Is Cyril Ramaphosa Next?
By Samuel Ouma*
The office of the President of South Africa has often proved easier to win than to hold. Since the dawn of democracy in 1994, the country’s presidents have entered office with immense authority and public goodwill. Yet the modern history of South Africa reveals a recurring pattern: second terms often become periods of political vulnerability rather than consolidation.
Today, President Cyril Ramaphosa finds himself confronting that reality. Fresh judicial scrutiny over the long-running Phala Phala affair, renewed impeachment discussions in Parliament, and increasingly vocal calls for his resignation have once again thrust his presidency into uncertain territory. The Constitutional Court’s recent decision to revive a parliamentary impeachment process has handed his opponents fresh ammunition and raised uncomfortable questions about the future of his presidency.
For a leader who built his political brand on restoring credibility to the state after the turbulent years of Jacob Zuma, the optics are particularly damaging. The allegations may not have produced a criminal conviction, and Ramaphosa continues to deny wrongdoing, but the political consequences are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.
As South Africa navigates a new era of coalition politics, Ramaphosa is not merely fighting a legal battle. He is fighting for his political legacy.
The Ghosts Of Presidencies Past
South Africa’s democratic journey offers little comfort to presidents entering their second terms. Former President Thabo Mbeki appeared politically untouchable after winning a commanding second mandate in 2004. Under his leadership, the economy expanded, foreign investment increased, and South Africa strengthened its standing on the continent. Yet by 2008, Mbeki had been recalled by his own party.
His downfall was not orchestrated by opposition parties but by internal ANC rivals led by Jacob Zuma, whose victory at the ANC’s historic Polokwane Conference fundamentally altered South Africa’s political trajectory.
Mbeki became the first democratically elected South African president forced from office before completing his mandate.
A decade later, history repeated itself. President Jacob Zuma entered his second term in 2014 despite mounting controversy surrounding corruption allegations and governance concerns.
But the accumulation of scandals, court rulings, state capture revelations, and growing public anger eventually proved overwhelming. Faced with the prospect of a devastating electoral backlash, the ANC forced Zuma to resign in February 2018 before the end of his term.
Ironically, the man chosen to replace him was Cyril Ramaphosa. He was presented as the antidote to state capture and institutional decline. Today, he faces his own moment of reckoning.
The Phala Phala Shadow
The Phala Phala scandal has haunted Ramaphosa for nearly four years. The controversy stems from the theft of approximately $580,000 allegedly hidden in furniture at his private game farm. Ramaphosa has consistently maintained that the money represented proceeds from a buffalo sale and has denied violating any laws. Earlier investigations by the South African Reserve Bank and other authorities did not find sufficient grounds to prosecute him.
Yet the issue never disappeared politically. In May 2026, South Africa’s Constitutional Court overturned Parliament’s 2022 decision that had effectively shielded Ramaphosa from impeachment proceedings and ordered lawmakers to revisit the matter through a parliamentary committee. The ruling has reopened one of the most politically damaging chapters of his presidency.
Opposition parties immediately seized on the judgment. Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema renewed demands for Ramaphosa’s resignation, arguing that a sitting president should not simultaneously govern while preparing a legal defense against impeachment proceedings.
Following the Constitutional Court ruling, Malema declared that Ramaphosa should resign immediately and face the impeachment process outside office. In another statement after the judgment, he predicted that the impeachment inquiry would expose further damaging information about the president.
The newly formed uMkhonto weSizwe Party, backed by former President Jacob Zuma, has similarly used the controversy to portray Ramaphosa as unfit to lead. For opposition leaders, the issue is no longer simply about Phala Phala. It is about credibility.
Ramaphosa Refuses To Blink
Yet unlike Mbeki and Zuma during the final months of their presidencies, Ramaphosa is showing little indication that he intends to step aside. In a nationally televised address following the Constitutional Court ruling, he made his position unequivocally clear.
“I will not resign,” the president declared while insisting that none of the findings against him compel his resignation from office. He further argued that allegations against him remained unproven and that due process should be allowed to run its course.
His position has been reinforced by the ANC leadership.Despite growing pressure from opposition parties, senior ANC figures have publicly backed Ramaphosa and emphasized their confidence in his leadership. The party has maintained that the president deserves the opportunity to challenge the findings through legal channels and that constitutional processes must be respected.
That support matters enormously. South African political history suggests presidents rarely fall because of opposition pressure alone. They fall when the ANC decides they have become a political liability. For now, that moment has not arrived.
The Coalition Factor
Unlike Mbeki and Zuma, Ramaphosa governs under circumstances no South African president has previously faced. The ANC’s historic loss of its parliamentary majority in the 2024 elections fundamentally changed the political landscape.
For the first time since the end of apartheid, South Africa is governed through a coalition arrangement. This has made governing more complicated but has also altered the calculations around leadership change.
Removing Ramaphosa would no longer be a purely internal ANC affair. It would risk destabilizing a fragile governing arrangement that includes political rivals and coalition partners with competing interests.
The Democratic Alliance, despite its criticism of the president and insistence on accountability, has also shown interest in preserving governmental stability amid growing economic and geopolitical challenges. In many ways, coalition politics may be offering Ramaphosa protection that neither Mbeki nor Zuma enjoyed.
A Question Of Delivery
The greatest threat to Ramaphosa may ultimately be neither Parliament nor the courts. It may be public impatience. When he assumed office in 2018, expectations were extraordinarily high. South Africans expected decisive action against corruption. They expected faster economic growth. They expected improvements in electricity supply, public services, and employment opportunities.
Some progress has been made. State institutions weakened during the state capture years have regained credibility, and South Africa has avoided some of the institutional crises many feared.
Yet the country continues to grapple with some of the highest unemployment rates in the world, persistent crime, slow economic growth, and deep inequality. Even among supporters, questions are increasingly being asked about whether Ramaphosa’s cautious and consensus-driven leadership style is suited to the urgency of South Africa’s challenges. The criticism is not limited to opposition figures.
Political analyst and businessman Moeletsi Mbeki recently described Ramaphosa as a “very weak president” who has struggled to impose authority within both his party and government. While the remarks reflect one analyst’s view, they capture a broader frustration among some South Africans who feel reform has moved too slowly.
The Battle For Legacy
History often judges presidents not by how they begin but by how they finish. Nelson Mandela left after one term by choice. Mbeki left after a recall. Zuma left under pressure. Ramaphosa now stands at a crossroads.
If he survives the current storm, successfully manages coalition politics, and oversees a period of greater economic stability, he could be remembered as the leader who guided South Africa through one of the most difficult transitions in its democratic history.
If he fails, historians may place him alongside predecessors whose second terms became cautionary tales about the limits of political power. The irony is impossible to miss. Ramaphosa rose to power promising to end an era of scandal and restore trust in public institutions. Now, in the twilight of his presidency, his own political future is being shaped by the very institutions he once championed.
For a president who helped rescue the ANC from one crisis, the question hanging over South African politics today is whether he can rescue himself from another.The impeachment committee will proceed. The courts will continue their work. Opposition leaders will intensify their campaign. The ANC will be forced to weigh loyalty against political calculations. And Cyril Ramaphosa will continue fighting to prove that South Africa’s second-term curse is not inevitable. Whether history agrees remains to be seen.
*Culled from June Edition of PAV Magazine
