- The EFF and the African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA) challenged the parliamentary committee’s decision to withdraw its earlier recommendation of Madonsela.
- The majority of the judges dismissed both applications, meaning the committee’s decision stands.
- However, one judge disagreed and believed the applications should have been successful. This judge felt the committee’s decision should have been set aside, with costs awarded.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA) have lost their attempt to overturn Parliament’s decision to withdraw Advocate Thandazani Griffiths Madonsela SC’s recommendation as chief evidence leader for the Section 89 impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The majority judgment, delivered in the High Court in the Western Cape, dismissed both applications that challenged the parliamentary committee’s decision. The committee is investigating whether Ramaphosa should face impeachment following the theft of foreign currency at his Phala Phala farm.
This ruling means the committee’s decision remains in place, so Madonsela will not be reinstated as evidence leader through these applications.
Ramaphosa raised objections to Madonsela’s recommendation
The dispute began in August 2026 when the Section 89 Impeachment Committee recommended Advocate Thandazani Griffiths Madonsela SC as its chief evidence leader. But the recommendation became controversial after President Ramaphosa wrote to Parliament, raising concerns about Madonsela’s suitability for the role.
The President questioned whether Madonsela could lead the inquiry impartially. He pointed to Madonsela’s previous involvement with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and his legal work for the African National Congress (ANC) on matters related to the impeachment process.
Ramaphosa also raised concerns about Madonsela’s earlier role as his representative on the JSC, as well as comments the advocate had made about the Phala Phala matter.
The committee reconsidered the recommendation and, on 1 September 2026, voted 18 to 9 to withdraw its earlier decision and reopen the nomination process. Committee chairperson Makashule Gana defended this, saying members were entitled to reconsider the recommendation given the concerns raised.
EFF and ALPA challenged the committee
The decision led the EFF and ALPA to launch separate legal challenges. They went to the High Court, asking for the committee’s decision to be reviewed and set aside.
The applicants wanted the court to reverse the decision to withdraw Madonsela’s recommendation, so that he could take up the position of chief evidence leader. Their challenge focused on whether the committee had the authority to change its earlier recommendation.
Gana opposed the applications, defending the committee’s decision and arguing that it had acted within its powers under the rules of the National Assembly. The committee also said Madonsela had not yet been formally appointed when the recommendation was withdrawn.
Committee’s decision stands
In the majority judgment, the court dismissed both applications. The court allowed the late filing of the answering affidavit, supplementary affidavit, and heads of argument by the chairperson of the implementation committee for the Section 89 inquiry.
The court also allowed the late filing of the EFF applicant’s heads of argument. Both applications were heard as urgent matters under Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Non-compliance with the rules about service and time periods was also excused. In the end, the majority dismissed both applications and made no order as to costs.
Dissenting judgment favoured applicants
One judge disagreed with the majority and concluded that both applications should have been granted. According to this dissenting judgment, the committee’s decision to withdraw Advocate Thandazani Griffiths Madonsela SC’s recommendation should have been reviewed and set aside, with costs.
However, the majority judgment is the order of the court. The ruling means the committee’s decision to withdraw Madonsela’s recommendation remains intact, and the committee can continue with the process of selecting a new evidence leader for the Phala Phala impeachment inquiry.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
