PRETORIA, Gauteng — Legal representatives for Adv. Thandazani Madonsela are threatening legal action against Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee following its controversial decision to rescind his nomination as evidence leader in the Phala Phala inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa. The escalating legal battle centers on whether the committee’s process has been lawful and whether sufficient, properly tested evidence exists to justify the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
Madonsela’s attorneys have formally called for an urgent review of the committee’s decision to withdraw his nomination. However, committee chairperson Makashule Gana has declined to agree to the proposed expedited timetable for this review. Political parties now have until Friday to submit fresh nominations for the critical evidence leader role, adding further urgency to the unfolding constitutional dispute.
The legal friction extends to the core findings of the inquiry itself. During recent proceedings, Advocate Perumalsamy argued that the presence of foreign currency on the president’s farm proves he was engaged in undisclosed “side work.” This notion was challenged by the bench, with Judge Sher emphasizing that there must be concrete proof of paid work, noting that the mere sale of an item like a kettle is insufficient. They further clarified that paid work is constitutionally permissible provided it is formally declared, does not interfere with presidential duties, and does not involve illegal activity.
The president’s legal council has aggressively argued that the Section 89 independent panel report is fundamentally flawed and unlawful, urging that it be set aside. Their argument rests on the claim that the panel relied on untested evidence, unverified information, and unverified audio. Furthermore, the president’s lawyers contend that the charges themselves were not directed at established facts and cannot withstand strict legal scrutiny, asserting that merely having “sufficient evidence to answer” is too broad a standard without specifying the legal grounds.
Conversely, legal representatives for opposition parties, including the EFF, ATM, and MKP, have defended the panel’s process. They argued that the panel’s sole mandate was to identify whether a prima facie case existed for the president to answer, a threshold they maintain has been successfully established.
Constitutional law expert Adv. Lufuno Nevondwe provided critical analysis of these developments, highlighting significant procedural shortcomings in the Section 89 report. Nevondwe pointed out that the panel operated unlike a traditional commission of inquiry, notably failing to utilize cross-examination, which is widely regarded as the greatest engine for establishing the truth. Without tested evidence and rigorous cross-examination, Nevondwe argued, the panel rushed its analysis and fell short of the required legal test, making the report vulnerable to being set aside.
A central pillar of the defense has been the concept of good faith. Judge President Mabindla-Boqwana raised this issue during proceedings, questioning whether a president who genuinely believed he was acting within the ethical code could be found guilty. Adv. Nevondwe concurred, noting that ethical violations typically require malice or bad faith. The president’s legal team has consistently maintained that he acted in good faith and with honesty, particularly by reporting the 2020 theft at the Phala Phala farm to senior South African Police Service (SAPS) officers, who were then obligated to report the matter to the relevant authorities. There is currently no evidence to suggest the president violated the constitution or applicable legislation.
While the bench has rigorously questioned all parties, including the ATM, legal experts caution against prematurely predicting the High Court’s final ruling. Both the president’s council and the opposition parties have presented robust arguments. With closing arguments expected imminently, the presiding judges are now tasked with evaluating the evidence and applying the law without fear, favor, or prejudice to determine the ultimate fate of the impeachment process.
