By Sihle Mavuso
The African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA) has threatened court action against Parliament’s Phala Phala Impeachment Committee over its decision to reverse its recommendation of Advocate Griffiths Madonsela SC as its evidence leader.
ALPA is a Durban-based association established in 2024 with a mandate to advance the interests of African legal practitioners and challenge “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The committee rescinded its earlier recommendation of Madonsela on 1 September, after President Cyril Ramaphosa formally objected to his selection and the ANC disclosed that the advocate had previously provided it with legal advice relating to the Section 89 process.
The threat of legal action is contained in a letter dated Thursday, 3 September, sent to the committee by Mhlanga Inc on behalf of ALPA.
The letter was also copied to National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, Ramaphosa and other interested parties.
The law firm told the committee, chaired by RISE Mzansi MP Makashule Gana, that ALPA considered the decision to rescind Madonsela’s recommendation irrational and reviewable.
It said it intended approaching the Western Cape High Court to have the decision set aside.
“Our client is advised that the rescission decision is, inter alia, patently unlawful and irrational and thus legally assailable. The Committee is accordingly placed on notice that our client will institute an application in the Western Cape Division for an order reviewing and setting aside the rescission decision and declaring the resolution of 5 August 2026 to be of full force and effect.
“We have received instructions to brief counsel to commence with the preparation of our client’s application. Our client envisages that the application will be formally instituted on Monday 7 September 2026,” reads part of the letter to the committee.
The committee on 5 August recommended Madonsela as evidence leader, but the appointment process had not yet been finalised when questions were raised over his previous involvement in matters connected to the Section 89 process.
Ramaphosa subsequently objected to Madonsela’s selection, citing concerns about a potential conflict of interest.
Parliament’s legal advisers did not find evidence establishing an actual conflict of interest, but regarded the disclosure about Madonsela’s previous work for the ANC as “new information” that had not expressly been before the committee when it initially recommended him.
The committee was advised that it could either confirm its earlier recommendation with reasons or rescind it and reconsider the matter. It eventually voted 18-9 to rescind the recommendation and reopen the selection process.
The decision was also opposed by the MK Party, EFF, ActionSA, BOSA, ATM and UAT, which said that Madonsela’s previous work for the ANC was already known when he was recommended and did not justify reversing the decision. ActionSA accused the ANC “with the support of GNU partners” of using the dispute to delay the impeachment proceedings.
ALPA asked for records relating to the 1 September meeting at which the decision was taken.
“In light of the foregoing, we request that the secretary of the Impeachment Committee to provide us with the record of the impugned rescission decision that was taken by the Impeachment Committee on 1 September 2026. The above record of the impugned decision will include, inter alia, minutes, records, agenda, memoranda, transcript of the recording, voting and debate before the impugned rescission decision was taken. Our client is entitled to the record of the decision,” it said.
Mhlanga Inc said the application would be pursued as an expedited urgent review, with the matter envisaged to be heard on Thursday, 17 September.
According to the timetable proposed in the letter, any notice of intention to oppose would be due by 4pm on Tuesday, followed by the specified record by 10 September.
The law firm said ALPA did not have an interest in whether Madonsela was ultimately confirmed as chief evidence leader, but wanted the process used to recommend or appoint an evidence leader to comply with the law and the Constitution.
“The rule of law and the public interest require this to be so,” it said.
Parliament did not acknowledged receipt of the letter by the time of publication.
INSIDE POLITICS
