Madonsela was ‘at the heartland of Section 89 territory’, court hears in Phala Phala legal battle

Parliament’s Phala Phala impeachment committee has contended that its decision to withdraw Advocate Thandazani Griffiths Madonsela’s nomination as chief evidence leader for President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Section 89 inquiry was justified by information that emerged after his initial selection.

The committee’s legal representative, Advocate Kameel Premhid, made the submissions on Wednesday, 14 October 2026, as the Western Cape High Court heard arguments on the second day of proceedings in Cape Town.

The legal battle follows review applications by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA), which seek to have the committee’s decision to withdraw Madonsela’s nomination reviewed and set aside.

The dispute arose after Ramaphosa objected to Madonsela’s appointment in a letter dated 18 August 2026.

Among his concerns was the advocate’s previous involvement in providing legal advice to the ANC on matters relating to the impeachment process.

The committee subsequently reversed its recommendation on 1 September.

Phala Phala impeachment committee: Evidence leader nomination in dispute

Premhid argued that the committee had received additional information that warranted a reconsideration of its initial decision.

He directed the court to two pieces of correspondence: a letter Madonsela sent to the committee on 27 July and a letter from ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula dated 7 August, confirming that the advocate had been briefed to provide legal services to the party.

In his letter, Madonsela explained that he had been asked to assist a junior advocate by providing an “ad hoc opinion on legal matters arising impeachment processes”.

Premhid highlighted that Mbalula’s correspondence indicated that the scope of the legal brief was not confined to a specific, isolated issue.

“In fact, it’s an unqualified open brief that is dealing with this entire impeachment process,” he argued.

Madonsela closely linked to impeachment process

The committee’s legal team maintained that the correspondence showed “a degree of entanglement” on Madonsela’s involvement in legal matters connected to the inquiry.

“The ANC secretary-general’s words is to say that he, Advocate Madonsela SC, is really at the heart of what might be… the legal-political strategy that the ANC might be adopting insofar as this process is concerned.”

Premhid told the court that the letters, considered alongside Ramaphosa’s objections, formed part of the sequence of events that led to the withdrawal of the nomination.

“So absolutely, it’s new information in the way in which I am constructing these letters for you.”

He emphasised that the dates and sequence of the correspondence were important in understanding why the committee reconsidered its position.

‘We were comparing apples and pears’

Premhid also addressed the committee’s decision to select Madonsela over Advocate Kate Hofmeyr, who has represented Ramaphosa in legal cases on more than one occasion.

He argued that their respective involvement in legal matters was different in nature.

“Your Ladyship asked: Are we comparing apples with apples? Because at that moment, we were comparing two senior counsel, Madonsela and Hofmeyr.

“All I’ll gently point out is the difference and why we weren’t comparing apples with apples. We were comparing apples and pears, and I’m not going to say which is which.

“The point is that Madonsela SC, based on the documents and the evidence in front of you, is at the heartland of Section 89 territory.

“Hofmeyr [on the other hand] was dealing with presidential litigation.”

Judgment in the matter has been reserved.