By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) has filed an application before the Western Cape High Court seeking to review and set aside the decision of the Section 89 Impeachment Committee to rescind the nomination of Adv Griffiths Madonsela as its Evidence Leader.
The respondents cited in the application are National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, Impeachment Committee Chairperson Makashule Gana, President Cyril Ramaphosa, and Advocate Thuli Madonsela.
During the sitting on Tuesday, 01 September 2026, 18 Members of Parliament voted in favour of Madonsela’s removal while 9 MPs wanted to retain him following a complaint by Ramaphosa.
In his complaint Ramaphosa said, “There is a reasonable apprehension that adv Madonsela SC may harbour a sense of grievance towards him and that he may act upon it” because he had removed the advocate as his representative on the Judicial Service Commission in March 2022.
Ramaphosa’s other claimed conflict of interest – that Madonsela had provided legal advice to the ANC on impeachment processes – has been on public record for weeks.
Parliament’s Legal Advisor Michael Prince said, Ramaphosa’s objections to Madonsela SC being recommended as the evidence leader for the impeachment inquiry has failed to establish a conflict of interest in the choice.
“The information presently available does not establish an actual conflict of interest. Nevertheless, the subsequent disclosure that the advice was rendered to the ANC constitutes new information, said Prince.”
He added, “That fact alone may justify the committee formally deliberating on President’s objection, not because its previous recommendation was invalid, but because the committee should satisfy itself that the requirement that there is no real or perceived conflict of interest remains met.”
The committee has, instead, been advised to consider Madonsela’s latest disclosure to determine whether a perceived conflict of interest exists.
With the ANC and PA leading the charge, the parties belonging to the government of national unity argued that there was a perception that Madonsela was biased against Ramaphosa, warranting the turnaround.
Opposition parties accused the ANC of filibustering and noted that Madonsela’s nomination was approved by a majority of the committee on 5 August, during which time the ANC abstained.
The committee will now have to go back to the drawing board to recommend a new evidence leader.
In its application, the EFF seeks an order declaring unlawful any decision by the committee to appoint or recommend another person to the position instead of Madonsela.
The party argues that the matter should be heard urgently under Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court. It asks the court to condone any non-compliance with the ordinary rules governing time periods and service because of the urgency of the matter.
The EFF is also seeking a costs order against the respondents should they oppose the application, as well as any further or alternative relief the court considers appropriate.
Meanwhile judgment has been reserved in the Western Cape High Court in the review application challenging the Section 89 independent panel report brought by Ramaphosa.