By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Western Cape High Court has reserved judgment after hearing arguments over a two-day period in the application challenging Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee.
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA) brought an application to challenge decision taken by parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee to rescind Advocate Griffiths Madonsela’s nomination as evidence leader.
This after President Cyril Ramaphosa objected to Madonsela’s appointment. Ramaphosa is facing impeachment in connection with the theft of US dollars from his farm in 2020.
The committee’s legal representative, Advocate Kameel Premhid, made the submissions on Wednesday, 14 October 2026.
Premhid argued that the committee had received additional information that warranted a reconsideration of its initial decision.
He directed the court to two pieces of correspondence: a letter Madonsela sent to the committee on 27 July and a letter from ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula dated 7 August, confirming that the advocate had been briefed to provide legal services to the party.
Premhid highlighted that Mbalula’s correspondence indicated that the scope of the legal brief was not confined to a specific, isolated issue.
“In fact, it’s an unqualified open brief that is dealing with this entire impeachment process, “he argued.
He said in rescinding the decision on Madonsela, the committee was acting on new and material information that had been put before it, and not because it came from the president.
Premhid also addressed the committee’s decision to select Madonsela over Advocate Kate Hofmeyr, who has represented Ramaphosa in legal cases on more than one occasion.
He argued that their respective involvement in legal matters was different in nature.
“Your Ladyship asked: Are we comparing apples with apples? Because at that moment, we were comparing two senior counsel, Madonsela and Hofmeyr.”
“All I’ll gently point out is the difference and why we weren’t comparing apples with apples. We were comparing apples and pears, and I’m not going to say which is which.”
“The point is that Madonsela SC, based on the documents and the evidence in front of you, is at the heartland of Section 89 territory.”
“Hofmeyr [on the other hand] was dealing with presidential litigation.”
Representing the EFF, Advocate Mfesane Ka-Siboto argued that Madonsela’s previous work for the ANC had already been disclosed before the committee recommended him. He questioned why the committee had initially proceeded with the recommendation before changing course following the President’s objections.
Ka-Siboto also argued that a previous professional relationship with the ANC did not automatically establish a conflict of interest or demonstrate that Madonsela would be biased in carrying out his responsibilities.
The applicants maintain that the committee must demonstrate a rational and lawful basis for rescinding its decision, rather than simply relying on its ability to reverse its own resolutions.
The committee has agreed to wait for the court’s judgment before proceeding with the appointment process for a new evidence leader and finalizing its terms of reference.