On the eve of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s court review of the Section 89 panel report that found he had a case to answer in the Phala Phala saga, Parliament’s impeachment committee appears to be back to square one – without an evidence leader or finalised terms of reference.
The political fault lines of the vote that in effect dropped Advocate Thandazani Madonsela as evidence leader in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s impeachment inquiry ran between political parties in the Government of National Unity, or GNU, and the so-called progressive caucus, including the MK party, EFF, African Transformation Movement (ATM) and others.
Tuesday’s vote – 18 against continuing with Madonsela as evidence leader and nine for – means the search for an evidence leader restarts with new nominations by Friday, to be discussed – and decided on – at the next Impeachment Committee meeting scheduled for next Wednesday, when the aim is to also finalise the terms of reference.
The vote came at the end of some three hours of often acrimonious debate marked by what opposition MPs described as delaying tactics.
The discussion and decision were triggered by Ramaphosa’s objection to Madonsela over claimed bias because he had removed Madonsela as the presidential rep on the Judicial Service Commission in 2022, and that the advocate, according to ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula, had “advised the ANC on matters related to the present impeachment inquiry”.
The legal opinion stated Madonsela had no actual conflict of interest, but made much of perceived conflict of interest as stipulated in the committee’s draft terms of reference. And that perception involved what was described as “new information” that it was the ANC Madonsela had provided advice to.
This was a reference to the disclosure made ahead of the 5 August committee vote that recommended Madonsela as evidence leader, when MPs were told he received a brief from a firm of attorneys to lead a junior advocate in legal opinions to “the study group in Parliament”, but that ended a month later in early July as he was too busy to do more than oversee the junior advocate.
Historically, it’s known that the ANC in Parliament has study groups. This emerged in the public eye again as recently as June 2026 in the controversy over the Public Service Commission advisory note that officials briefing ANC study groups “may give rise to significant risks”, issued following a DA complaint about study groups. The ANC in Parliament and its head office at Luthuli House publicly defended the study group practice.
In Tuesday’s Impeachment Committee, EFF MP Omphile Maotwe said “we always knew it was the ANC” as it’s the only party with study groups.
Or as ATM MP Vuyolwethu Zungula put it: “We know study group in Parliament is ANC… There is no ATM with a study group. There is no MKP with a study group…There is only one organisation with a study group, that is the ANC.”
However, the ANC argued against this, as its MP David Kgabo did when he said he thought study group referred to a parliamentary entity. Earlier, ANC MP Cameron Dugmore argued that Madonsela not expressly mentioning the ANC study group in his letter of disclosure raised a red flag: “It seems there is an attempt not to fully disclose…”
DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach not only raised concerns about perceived conflict of interest, but also opened the door to further litigation: “We have seen the President has a propensity to litigate on every aspect of this matter…”
In contrast, MK party MP Siyabonga Gama said the President had a right to have his objections heard fully, but not to veto the committee’s decision to have Madonsela appointed as evidence leader. Or as ActionSA MP Lerato Ngobeni put it: “The President is entitled to procedural fairness, but he is not entitled to legal infinity.”
In the end, concerns about avoiding perceived conflicts of interest, and limiting the scope for potential litigation, led to the Impeachment Committee to vote to rescind its previous decision to have Madonsela as evidence leader.
Concerns about litigation are real. After Ramaphosa’s request to Parliament to halt impeachment proceedings was turned down, he successfully turned to the court for an interdict in July. It has left the committee able to prepare, including finalising the appointment of an evidence leader and the terms of reference, but unable to proceed with public impeachment hearings.
Committee chairperson, Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana, said in a media briefing after Tuesday’s committee vote that it was important to follow the rules, to “stay on the right side of the law” and for the impeachment process to be “transparent, legally sound and fair”. If not, the process would be exposed to more legal challenges.
“It is better to deal with a matter properly than to rush a decision and create difficulties later,” Gana said, adding that litigation in a process like this was to be expected.
From Wednesday, the Western Cape Division of the High Court is hearing Ramaphosa’s review bid to set aside the November 2022 Section 89 panel report that found he may have committed a serious constitutional violation in connection with the theft of $580,000 stuffed into sofa cushions on his private Phala Phala game farm. He argued the panel used the wrong legal standard when it assessed the information before it and relied on untested information, according to court papers filed on 26 May.
The hearing has been set down for three days from 2 September.
In December 2022, just before the ANC elective conference that gave Ramaphosa another term as party president, the ANC used its parliamentary majority to vote down the Section 89 panel report.
After the Constitutional Court in early 2023 denied Ramaphosa direct access to review this Section 89 report, the President dropped litigation – until May 2026, when the Constitutional Court judgment set aside that vote and in effect relaunched impeachment proceedings.
The litigious nature of proceedings may well mean that, regardless of the outcome, the losing side would appeal. The EFF and ATM have already proven their appetite to go to court over the interdict. If Ramaphosa lost and appealed, the operational effect would be to suspend the Western Cape Division of the High Court review judgment – leaving the interdict against parliamentary impeachment proceedings in place.
In this case, Parliament’s impeachment committee would continue to be hamstrung from proceeding. However, Gana remained upbeat on Tuesday: “The committee needs to be prepared for whatever the outcome.” DM
Follow the story
