CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee has formally resolved to oppose a legal challenge launched by the EFF and ALPA against its decision to rescind the nomination of Adv. Griffiths Madonsela as evidence leader. The committee is simultaneously advancing its draft terms of reference, which will establish the scope and conduct of the inquiry into the independent panel’s findings regarding President Cyril Ramaphosa’s conduct following the theft of funds at his Limpopo farm.
The dispute over who will lead the evidence in the Section 89 inquiry has now shifted to the Western Cape High Court. The committee voted to defend its position, arguing that the rescinded nomination was merely an unimplemented recommendation. Committee Chairperson Makashule Gana emphasized that the panel only holds the power to recommend, not appoint. He noted that no formal agreement had been concluded, no legal brief was issued, and no vested rights were granted to any party. Furthermore, Gana pointed out that Adv. Madonsela had formally accepted the withdrawal of the recommendation in writing, affirming the committee’s authority to fairly reconsider its own decisions.
The controversy stems from the committee’s August 5 decision to initially nominate Adv. Madonsela for the role. The EFF has strongly condemned the reversal, accusing the committee of acting irrationally. EFF representatives argued that Adv. Madonsela had already disclosed the very issues now being used to question his suitability. The party maintains that overturning the decision undermines Parliament’s independence and its constitutional mandate to hold the executive accountable. According to the EFF, the reversal was not driven by new facts or principled reconsideration, but rather at the direct insistence of the executive branch, rendering the move both irrational and procedurally flawed.
Despite the ongoing legal battle, the committee is pressing forward with its preparatory work, particularly the drafting of its terms of reference, which will serve as the roadmap for the entire inquiry. One prominent proposal under consideration is to open the process to public submissions before the final document is adopted. Proponents of this idea suggest a short window for public comment, citing Section 59(1) of the Constitution, which requires the National Assembly to facilitate public involvement in its legislative and committee processes.
However, this proposal faces significant pushback regarding timing. Honourable Cameron Dugmore suggested a brief period, such as seven days, for written comments. Counterarguments raised within the committee highlight that a seven-day window for written submissions, followed by the time needed to properly consider and apply their minds to those comments, would cause undue delays. Given the impending litigation, some members argue that these time constraints do not warrant the logistical burden of holding public hearings.
Additionally, an ANC proposal suggesting a staged approach to the inquiry, rather than immediately launching a full-blown impeachment process, has met with fierce opposition. Critics of the staged approach argue that the Constitutional Court has already characterized this proceeding as a full-blown trial. They warn that implementing a multi-step process, particularly a proposed “step three,” inadvertently creates an unnecessary preliminary process before the actual trial can commence.
In light of these developments, the committee has resolved to halt any considerations regarding the appointment of an alternative evidence leader. This pause will remain in effect until the outcome of the EFF and ALPA review application, which is scheduled to be heard in the Western Cape High Court next Friday.
