South African President has dismissed growing calls for his resignation over the lingering Phala Phala controversy, insisting he will instead challenge the findings of the Independent Panel report linked to the scandal.

Speaking to the nation on Monday, Ramaphosa denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that he neither stole public funds nor violated his oath of office. The president also rejected claims that he committed any criminal offence in relation to the alleged theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala farm in 2020.

He announced plans to seek a judicial review of the panel’s findings, arguing that the report contained major legal and factual flaws.

According to him, the move is not intended to undermine Parliament, but to ensure that conclusions reached in the matter are legally sound and factually accurate.

Ramaphosa said his decision was also influenced by last week’s ruling by South Africa’s Constitutional Court, which declared aspects of Parliament’s impeachment procedures unconstitutional.

The court judgment followed a legal challenge filed by opposition groups, including the and the . The parties had opposed the National Assembly’s 2022 decision not to establish a committee to consider recommendations from the Independent Panel.

The panel had earlier concluded that there may be a prima facie case for Ramaphosa to answer regarding the hidden foreign currency allegedly stolen from the Phala Phala farm.

Following the Constitutional Court ruling, opposition parties renewed pressure on the president to step down pending further accountability processes.

However, Ramaphosa firmly rejected the demands, insisting that resigning would amount to prejudging a constitutional process that is still ongoing.

He argued that stepping aside would also lend credibility to what he described as a deeply flawed report and could weaken ongoing reforms and anti-corruption efforts under his administration.

The Phala Phala controversy continues to stir political debate in , with critics insisting the allegations raise ethical concerns about the president’s conduct, while supporters argue that due legal process should be allowed to take its course.