The Section 89 committee will oppose the EFF's legal challenge.
Makashule Gana at Cape Town International Convention Centre (CTICC) on 21 May 2025. Picture: Gallo Images/Jeffrey Abrahams
The appointment of a chief evidence leader for the parliamentary impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal has been put on ice after MPs resolved to defend their decision to withdraw Advocate Thandazani Madonsela’s nomination.
The Section 89 impeachment committee voted on Wednesday, 9 September 2026, to oppose a legal challenge brought by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) over Madonsela’s removal from consideration for the position.
The dispute follows the committee’s decision earlier this month to reverse its recommendation that Madonsela serve as the inquiry’s chief evidence leader.
The EFF has since indicated that it has approached the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town to challenge that withdrawal.
Phala Phala impeachment committee rescinds evidence leader nomination
Madonsela’s nomination became contentious after Ramaphosa formally objected to his appointment in correspondence sent to the committee on 18 August.
The president raised concerns about Madonsela’s previous involvement in the matter, including his role in providing legal advice to the ANC on the impeachment issue.
Ramaphosa argued that this raised potential lawyer-client confidentiality concerns and could place Madonsela in a position of having an unfair advantage if he were appointed as the inquiry’s evidence leader.
The president also pointed to Madonsela’s removal from the JSC in 2022, arguing that the circumstances could contribute to a potential conflict.
Following the objection, the committee withdrew its earlier recommendation and reopened nominations for the position.
EFF heads to court
Senior parliamentary legal adviser Sueanne Isaac told the committee on Wednesday that the EFF’s case rested on allegations that the committee acted in “bad faith” and abused its own processes.
The EFF challenged Ramaphosa’s reasoning that Madonsela’s appointment raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
“Secondly, they argue that the committee’s decision was irrational, and they set out various grounds on which they argue that it was irrational.
“This includes the fact that the evidence leader is not a decision maker and the committee misconstrued the law in treating him as if he were importing an opposite adjudicative recusal standard.
“They also argue that the JSC grievance objection is speculative and contradicted by the record, including Madonsela’s own cordial correspondence to the president,” Isaac said.
The EF further questioned whether the committee had the legal authority to rescind a decision it had already made, claiming that the “precarious reversal offends the rule of law”.
The party has also contended that the matter requires urgent attention, citing the 8 May 2026 Constitutional Court (ConCourt) judgment concerning the establishment of the impeachment committee.
“The current process is being constrained by this decision of the committee.”
Watch the Section 89 committee meeting below:
Majority backs legal defence
The committee, which consists of 31 MPs representing 16 political parties, subsequently considered whether to oppose the EFF’s court application.
The vote ended with 19 members supporting a decision to oppose the challenge, while nine voted against.
Chairperson Makashule Gana said the committee would also oppose a separate legal challenge brought by the African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA).
“On behalf of the committee, I will ensure that the papers and all notices relating to opposing these two applications are submitted to court,” he told MPs on Wednesday.
The committee has now effectively paused the process of selecting another evidence leader until the legal disputes are resolved.
“There’s an emerging consensus from the meeting that we do not proceed with the appointment or the recommendation of the evidence leader today, and that we consider that after we have received the judgment on these two challenges that the committee will actively oppose in court,” Gana said.
He added MPs had decided that proceeding would not be appropriate while the legality of their previous decision was being challenged.
“Even though we are not interdicted as a committee, we are applying common sense and not proceeding with the recommendation of the evidence leader.”
