Simon Nare
The Section 89 Impeachment Committee will hold off on recommending a new evidence leader while the Western Cape High Court considers an urgent challenge by the Economic Freedom Fighters to its decision to rescind the recommendation of Advocate Griffiths Madonsela.
The committee reached consensus during a virtual meeting on Wednesday that it would take a “rational approach” and await the court’s judgment before proceeding with the appointment process.
Committee chairperson Makashule Gana said it was encouraging that members from across the political divide had found common ground, meaning there was no need to put the issue to a vote.
ALSO READ: Sithole says trade missions must deliver contracts and jobs, not delegates
The committee, however, resolved to oppose court challenges brought by both the EFF and the African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA) against the rescission of Madonsela’s recommendation.
Members voted 19 to nine to oppose the two applications.
The EFF filed an urgent application in the Western Cape High Court seeking to set aside the committee’s decision, arguing that it was irrational and unlawful and had been driven by the ANC to delay the impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa.
“At the core of the decision to rescind Madonsela’s appointment is a fervent attempt to make parliament cower to the executive. It is as if we learnt nothing from the years parliament was used to defend wrongdoing by Jacob Zuma, and now, the ANC, the DA, the PA and other GNU minions are prepared to show our Constitution a middle finger in defence of Ramaphosa and prevent him from ever accounting for the illicit dollars found in his Phala Phala farm,” the EFF said in a statement on Wednesday.
ALSO READ: No Joburg mayoral win without Soweto, says Mashaba of Zille
It said its challenge would seek to demonstrate that Ramaphosa’s objection to Madonsela’s appointment was made in bad faith and was aimed at delaying and frustrating the committee’s work.
It also argued that the committee’s decision was irrational because evidence leaders were not judges, had no decision-making powers in the impeachment process and served a committee that remained the ultimate decision-maker.
ALPA, a Durban-based association established in 2024 to advance the interests of African legal practitioners, has said that Ramaphosa’s 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 association also said Parliament’s Constitutional and Legal Services Office had provided a written opinion finding that Madonsela was not conflicted.
It further argued that there was no basis for suggesting animosity between Madonsela and Ramaphosa arising from Madonsela’s removal from the Judicial Service Commission in March 2022.
