By Lehlohonolo Lehana.
The Section 89 impeachment committee has rescinded its decision to nominate advocate Thandazani Madonsela, SC, as the evidence leader of its inquiry into the impeachment proceedings against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Ramaphosa is facing impeachment over his conduct following the theft of US dollars from his farm Phala Phala in 2020.
During the sitting on Tuesday, 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.
Meanwhile the Western Cape High Court will hear Ramaphosa’s bid to overturn the Section 89 independent panel report on the Phala Phala matter from 2 to 4 September 2026.
The panel was unconvinced by Ramaphosa’s account of the theft of $580,000 from a couch in a room on his Phala Phala farm in February 2020, and did not accept his claims that the money had been the proceeds of a buffalo sale.
Its 82-page report found that the President had a case to answer over serious violations of the Constitution for exposing himself to a conflict of interest, doing outside paid work and contravening the Prevention of Corrupt Activities Act.
Ramaphosa previously approached the Constitutional Court in 2022 for direct access to challenge the report. However, the court dismissed his request, and the application was later abandoned after the National Assembly vote rendered it moot.
He has now revived the matter in the Western Cape high court. His core argument, that the panel “misconceived its mandate, misjudged the information placed before it and misinterpreted the four charges” against him, is mostly unchanged; as is his contention that the panel made findings against him about matters outside of the four charges he was asked to respond to.