Why Is Cyril Ramaphosa Untouchable? Questions Arise Over Marikana and Phala Phala

Public frustration is mounting as South African President Cyril Ramaphosa continues to face scrutiny over his alleged involvement in the Marikana massacre and the Phala Phala farm scandal. Many are now questioning why decisive action has not been taken against him, with accusations flying that some political players may be shielding the president due to shared interests or self-serving agendas.

The tragedy at Marikana in 2012 remains a deep scar in South Africa’s history. As the Deputy President and a Lonmin shareholder at the time, Ramaphosa was accused of playing a role in the police crackdown that led to the killing of 34 miners during a wage strike. Despite public outrage, the incident largely faded into political obscurity with no significant consequences for those in power.

More recently, the Phala Phala scandal has brought new allegations of misconduct against the president. Critics allege that Ramaphosa concealed the theft of a large sum of foreign currency from his private game farm and failed to report the incident as required by law. While parliamentary hearings and investigations have stirred controversy, they have yet to result in concrete actions against him.

Double Standards in Accountability
Observers argue that Ramaphosa’s immunity from significant legal or political consequences reveals glaring double standards in how corruption is addressed. Some critics have gone as far as accusing political figures, including those within opposition ranks, of selectively targeting corruption cases while ignoring others that implicate powerful allies.

“Why are they not taking action against Cyril Ramaphosa for Marikana and Phala Phala?” asks Sipho Mahlangu, a political analyst. “Is it because they are aligned with the ANC, or do they benefit from turning a blind eye to corruption that serves their interests?”

Such allegations have been bolstered by the muted responses of various factions that claim to champion accountability. While opposition parties and civil society have been vocal about other corruption scandals, their approach to Ramaphosa has been comparatively reserved.

A Shield of Political Loyalty?
Some analysts suggest that the reluctance to act decisively against Ramaphosa stems from his perceived role as a stabilizing force within the African National Congress (ANC). His presidency is often touted as a “clean-up operation” following the tumultuous tenure of Jacob Zuma, whose administration was marred by widespread state capture allegations.

“Ramaphosa is seen as the lesser evil,” says political commentator Lindiwe Ndlovu. “This narrative allows him to evade accountability because many fear that challenging him could destabilize the ANC or even the country.”

However, this stance has not sat well with many South Africans who feel betrayed by the very leaders they elected to serve their interests. The outcry is particularly strong among those who see the Marikana incident as a symbol of unchecked state violence and corporate exploitation.

Civil Society Demands Action
Civil society groups have not been silent on these issues. Organizations like the Socio-Economic Rights Institute (SERI) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) have repeatedly called for accountability for the Marikana tragedy. Similarly, watchdog groups have demanded transparency in the investigation of the Phala Phala farm scandal.

Still, the road to justice remains fraught with challenges. A lack of political will, coupled with South Africa’s deeply entrenched culture of impunity for high-ranking officials, continues to obstruct meaningful progress.

The Bigger Picture
The controversy surrounding Ramaphosa raises uncomfortable questions about South Africa’s broader political landscape. Are the institutions meant to uphold justice and accountability truly independent, or are they influenced by the very powers they are supposed to check?

As South Africans reflect on these issues, one thing is clear: the public’s patience is wearing thin. If action is not taken against Ramaphosa for these controversies, it risks setting a dangerous precedent where corruption and misconduct are normalized for those in power.

The outcry over Marikana and Phala Phala is not merely about one individual—it is a test of South Africa’s commitment to justice and equality. Without decisive action, the country’s democratic foundations may weaken further, leaving ordinary citizens to bear the brunt of unchecked political power.

This lingering question remains: Is justice only for the powerless, while the powerful remain untouchable?