By Sihle Mavuso
The African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA) has filed an urgent court application challenging Parliament’s Phala Phala Impeachment Committee’s decision to rescind its recommendation of Advocate Griffiths Thandazani Madonsela SC as its evidence leader.
The court papers were filed electronically with the Western Cape High Court on Tuesday, with ALPA asking for the matter to be heard next Friday on an urgent basis.
ALSO READ: Gauteng logs 85% target score, but a third of complaints go unresolved
ALPA is a Durban-based association established in 2024 to advance the interests of African legal practitioners and challenge what it describes as “unequal access to opportunities” in the legal profession.
The committee rescinded its earlier recommendation of Madonsela on 1 September, after President Cyril Ramaphosa formally objected to his appointment.
The ANC subsequently disclosed that Madonsela had previously provided legal advice relating to the Section 89 process, raising concerns that he could be conflicted.
The respondents cited in the application include committee chairperson Magashule Gana, National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, Ramaphosa and Madonsela, among others.
ALPA wants the court to set aside the committee’s decision, arguing that it knew Madonsela had at some point “supervised limited legal advice” on impeachment-related matters provided to a parliamentary study group.
The association’s lawyers argue that Ramaphosa’s subsequent objection to Madonsela on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest amounted to an overreach because the president “has no such right in law”.
The lawyers also said Parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Services Office had provided a written opinion that Madonsela was not conflicted.
They further argued that there was no basis for suggesting animosity between Madonsela and Ramaphosa arising from his removal from the Judicial Service Commission in March 2022.
ALSO READ: ANC defends IEC court challenge, says it is not questioning electoral body’s integrity
“Despite those findings, the committee rescinded the recommendation (of Madonsela). In doing so, it applied a different and legally incorrect understanding of conflict to substantially the same facts,” the lawyers said.
“It also disregarded the response which it had itself invited and its chairperson, having received and circulated it, never referred to the advisers whose opinion he put to the vote.”
The lawyers argued that the committee had relied on facts contradicted by its own record and treated the president’s objection as a valid basis for rescinding its earlier decision.
They also said the ANC’s objection did not establish that Madonsela was in possession of any confidential information belonging to the party that could be used against Ramaphosa during the committee’s proceedings.
ALPA stressed that it was not asking the High Court to intervene in the committee’s process or appoint an evidence leader.
Instead, it wants the court to set aside what it describes as an unlawful decision to rescind Madonsela’s appointment.
“Setting aside that decision restores the committee’s own resolution of 5 August 2026, the validity of which no party has impugned, and remits the matter to the committee to proceed according to law,” the lawyers said.
At the time of publication, it was not clear whether the committee would oppose the application.
