Parliament has defended its decision to withdraw Advocate Thandazani Griffiths Madonsela’s nomination as evidence leader in the Section 89 impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal, arguing that the process had not reached finality and that new information justified reconsidering his appointment.
The Western Cape High Court heard arguments on Wednesday as Parliament opposed review applications brought by the EFF and the African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA), which are seeking to have the committee’s decision overturned.
The organisations argue that the Section 89 Impeachment Committee’s decision to rescind Madonsela’s nomination was irrational and unlawful.
Representing the committee, Advocate Kameel Premhid argued that Madonsela had not been formally appointed and that the committee was entitled to reconsider its earlier recommendation after being presented with new and material facts.
Premhid told the court that the applicants were attempting to turn a provisional recommendation into an established right.
He said the committee’s decision had to be assessed on the reasons behind it and the debate that informed the final resolution, rather than simply on the fact that its position had changed.
“Politicians are known for what they call their minds, all the time. It doesn’t matter that they do that. What matters ultimately is how the debate unfolded, what the resolution taken was, and the reasons that carried the day,” Premhid said.
He rejected the suggestion that the committee’s decision-making process was irrational, while acknowledging that the committee was not free to act arbitrarily.
“I’m not saying the committee can act any willy-nilly, and act irrationally. I’m not saying that at all. What I am saying is the reasons in front of you, that can be distilled from the transcripts, demonstrate that rationality, and just because the process followed is one the applicants complain about doesn’t make it irrational,” he said.
The dispute centres on the committee’s decision last month to reverse its earlier recommendation in favour of Madonsela after Ramaphosa raised concerns about his suitability for the position.
In correspondence sent to the committee on August 18, 2026, the president questioned Madonsela’s previous involvement in the impeachment matter, including legal advice he had provided to the ANC on issues relating to the proceedings.
Ramaphosa also raised Madonsela’s removal from the Judicial Service Commission in 2022, suggesting that the circumstances surrounding the matter could create a potential conflict of interest.
The committee subsequently withdrew its recommendation and reopened the nomination process.
The inquiry is intended to examine allegations against Ramaphosa arising from the theft of US dollars from his Phala Phala farm.
The committee has placed the selection of a replacement evidence leader on hold pending the outcome of the court proceedings.
The EFF and ALPA are asking the court to review and set aside the decision to withdraw Madonsela’s nomination, while the committee maintains that it acted within its powers and that the recommendation had not become a final appointment.