In a move aimed at preserving procedural integrity, the Democratic Alliance has endorsed the selection of Makashule Gana (representative of the RISE Mzansi party) as chairperson of Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee investigating the Phala Phala matter. The inquiry marks South Africa’s first presidential impeachment process under the post-apartheid constitutional framework.
DA spokesperson Jan de Villiers emphasized that the appointment strengthens the inquiry’s credibility by ensuring leadership perceived as neutral. “We are looking for the truth. We want to make sure that accountability is transparent but that it is also fair—that there’s a fair administrative process inside the impeachment committee,” de Villiers stated.
The DA explained its rationale for opposing candidates from major political blocs. According to de Villiers, an ANC nominee would face inherent challenges maintaining objectivity when overseeing proceedings involving a president from their own party. Conversely, the party said it could not support nominees from the so-called “progressive caucus”—including the EFF and MK Party—alleging that several members had already publicly declared the President guilty, potentially compromising impartiality.
Gana, representing a party with only two parliamentary seats, emerged as a consensus candidate backed by both the DA and ANC. De Villiers described the selection as a deliberate compromise, noting that the DA also chose not to field its own nominee to avoid perceptions of partisan influence.
“We think Mr. Gana is the right candidate,” de Villiers said. “We are really glad that it is not a candidate from the ANC nor the MK or the EFF. We don’t feel that would have been appropriate.”
During the selection process, de Villiers expressed surprise that Build One South Africa (BOSA) leader Mmusi Maimane and the ACDP aligned with the progressive caucus in supporting an alternative candidate. While acknowledging that Maimane and Gana both previously served in the DA, de Villiers declined to speculate extensively on the motivations behind the smaller parties’ voting decisions, stressing that the final outcome aligned with the DA’s preference.
With leadership now settled, the committee is tasked with establishing its terms of reference and procedural rules, continuing work mandated by the Constitutional Court.
Parallel legal developments, however, present potential complications. President Cyril Ramaphosa has submitted a review application seeking to set aside the Section 89 panel report that initiated the impeachment process. De Villiers affirmed the President’s constitutional right to pursue legal remedies but cautioned that such applications must not impede Parliament’s duty to proceed with the inquiry.
The DA has formally requested that the Speaker of Parliament provide a comprehensive legal opinion addressing two key questions: whether Parliament should oppose the President’s review application, and whether continuing the inquiry amid pending litigation risks compromising the committee’s work. De Villiers confirmed that, at the time of his remarks, no such opinion had been circulated to committee members, though the ANC indicated one was forthcoming.
Additionally, de Villiers stressed that any legal counsel representing Parliament in court proceedings related to the review application should be selected collectively by the parties represented on the impeachment committee, ensuring broad agreement on representation.
“Whether the Speaker would have to oppose the review application… will have to be based on a good legal case,” de Villiers said. “We have to first see if that legal case is presented to the Speaker, and that should be the guiding principle here: objective legal guidance.”
As the committee prepares to commence substantive deliberations, stakeholders await clarity on both procedural frameworks and the intersection of parliamentary and judicial processes in this unprecedented constitutional moment.