South Africa’s parliamentary rulemakers are undertaking a comprehensive revision of impeachment procedures after the Constitutional Court’s decisive ruling on the Phala Phala case, which nullified provisions that had shielded a sitting president from preliminary investigative scrutiny—even when an independent panel indicated potential grounds for inquiry against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
At a midweek session, the Rules Committee scrutinized proposed changes previously advanced by its subcommittee. Central to discussions was Rule 129A(1)(c), which limits charges against the head of state to conduct “performed in person.” Multiple participants flagged concerns that this language could enable accountability gaps if alleged misconduct was executed via aides, proxies, or third parties acting on the president’s behalf.
Addressing this, the MK party formally proposed that the rule be revised to encompass actions “attributable to the president whether committed directly or through persons acting under the president’s authority, instruction, knowledge, or for the president’s benefit,” thereby closing potential avenues for evasion of responsibility.
The committee also weighed the inclusion of a “fit and proper” criterion to assess eligibility for membership on impeachment panels. Parliamentary legal counsel affirmed that the National Assembly holds constitutional authority under Section 57 to determine committee composition and could lawfully introduce such a standard. However, advisors cautioned that imposing this requirement would impinge upon political rights enshrined in Section 19 of the Constitution. They stressed that any adoption of the “fit and proper” test must satisfy three conditions: it must be rational, precisely articulated, and defensible under the limitations clause in Section 36.
Further legal suggestions included amending Section 47 of the Constitution to apply eligibility standards broadly rather than situationally. This proposal met with skepticism. One spokesperson highlighted two major drawbacks: constitutional amendments are inherently lengthy processes, and a blanket revision could unintentionally bar duly elected representatives from participating in Assembly affairs—outcomes deemed counterproductive to representative democracy.
Another focal point involved the legal status of an impeachment committee’s output. Draft language indicates that while the committee’s factual findings could carry binding weight, its recommendations on removal would still require ratification by a full Assembly vote. While some participants argued this structure conflicts with constitutional intent, others firmly defended the necessity of a plenary vote. Citing Section 89(1), a spokesperson clarified that impeachment initiates a formal accusation process, but final removal demands endorsement by at least two-thirds of Assembly members. “A vote is a democratic process,” the spokesperson noted, emphasizing that procedural rules cannot override this constitutional threshold.
Additionally, several committee members advocated for the impeachment panel itself to appoint the evidence leaders who would manage proceedings, aiming to enhance procedural independence and coherence.
As deliberations continue, Parliament aims to craft a rulebook that both complies with the Constitutional Court’s Phala Phala judgment and preserves the integrity of South Africa’s constitutional democracy, ensuring accountability mechanisms remain robust, legally sound, and politically legitimate.