By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Parliament’s Subcommittee on Rules debated a proposal to restrict the Impeachment Committee—which is tasked with investigating President Cyril Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala matter—to members who are not “fit and proper”.
The criteria sharply divided MPs, with the DA and ActionSA pushing for a high standard, while the MK Party and EFF are opposing the condition.
At the heart of the issue is whether the MK Party’s parliamentary leader, John Hlophe, an impeached judge, should serve on the Impeachment Committee.
The DA’s George Michalakis said this committee can’t be considered the same as other Parliamentary committees, and the reputation of those tasked with deciding whether the President has committed impeachable offences should not be called into question.
“The definition of fit and proper is a matter of legal precedence, so the courts have already defined it.”
Last year, the Western Cape High Court ruled that Hlophe was not fit and proper to represent Parliament on the Judicial Services Commission that interviews candidates to become judges.
EFF leader Julius Malema is also due to serve on the committee following his conviction on gun charges.
The ANC, DA and FF Plus have disagreed with Parliament’s legal advisors who have suggested that public input should be invited before introducing such a rule, since the Constitution does not make this limitation on who can serve as an MP.
After hearing arguments from members, National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has sent political parties back to the drawing board to discuss key disagreements on revised rules.
Didiza said it would be best to return the rules to the subcommittee to work with the legal team to clarify provisions that remained unclear.
Another bone of contention was whether Ramaphosa should be held indirectly accountable for the actions of officials working under him.
But Didiza cautioned about the ramifications of this.
“If a minister appointed by the President commits gross misconduct, will you impeach the President for that?”
Didiza has referred the sticking points back to the Rules Subcommittee for a final decision before the proposed rules are returned to the Rules Committee for adoption.
Meanwhile Chairperson of the Subcommittee on the Review of Assembly Rules, Dorris Mpapane, said the court’s findings had far-reaching implications for Parliament’s oversight role and its handling of impeachment proceedings.
“The Constitution, the Court determined that National Assembly Rule 129I was inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. The Court also invalidated the vote held on the 13th of December 2022 in the National Assembly on the report of the panel and referred the report to the Committee established by the Assembly Rules.”
Mpapane explained that the judgment not only nullified a specific procedural rule but also overturned a key parliamentary decision, forcing lawmakers to urgently revisit the framework governing impeachment inquiries.
The subcommittee, established in terms of National Assembly Rule 197, was tasked with assessing the implications of the judgment and recommending corrective measures. It convened multiple meetings in May and June 2026, considering legal advice, proposals from Parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Services, and submissions from political parties.
Following these deliberations, the subcommittee agreed on a series of amendments to Rules 129A to 129Q, which regulate impeachment processes.
“The subcommittee on the review of the Assembly Rules recommends that the National Assembly Rules Committee adopt the amendment to Rule 129A to 129Q as contained in Section E of this report,” Mpapane said.