Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee rescinded its recommendation of Advocate Thandazani Madonsela SC as Evidence Leader on 1 September 2026, by a majority vote of 18 to 9, after President Cyril Ramaphosa formally objected to the appointment. The decision came as the Western Cape High Court began hearing Ramaphosa’s substantive review application on 2 September 2026, seeking to set aside the Section 89 Independent Panel report that underpins the impeachment process.

Legal Challenges Shape Committee’s Approach

The committee had recommended Adv Madonsela as Evidence Leader on 5 August 2026, but Ramaphosa’s letter objecting to the appointment was received on 18 August 2026. According to Daily Maverick, Ramaphosa objected that Madonsela ‘may harbour a sense of grievance’ towards him over his removal as presidential representative on the Judicial Service Commission in March 2022, and over legal work Madonsela had done for the ANC. A parliamentary legal opinion, reported by Daily Maverick, found no actual grounds for a conflict of interest but took a narrow view of Madonsela’s prior disclosure about supervising a junior’s brief to a parliamentary study group. The committee voted to rescind the recommendation and reopened the nomination process, with political parties given until 4 September 2026 to submit new candidates.

The Western Cape High Court had previously granted an interim interdict prohibiting the committee from holding public impeachment hearings, pending the outcome of Ramaphosa’s review application. During the court hearing, Ramaphosa’s counsel, Wim Trengove SC, argued that the independent panel’s role was limited to determining whether sufficient evidence existed to warrant further parliamentary inquiry, not to make definitive findings on conflicting versions of events, according to SABC News. The panel’s report, if set aside, would effectively remove the legal foundation for the impeachment proceedings.

Constitutional Court Ruling Drove The Process

The impeachment process stems from the 2020 robbery at Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala farm, which prompted an independent panel to assess whether there were grounds for removal proceedings. The National Assembly initially declined to refer the panel’s report to an Impeachment Committee on 13 December 2022. The Constitutional Court ruled on 8 May 2026 that this decision was unconstitutional, finding Rule 129I of the National Assembly Rules inconsistent with the Constitution and ordering the report be referred to a newly established committee. Committee chairperson Makashule Gana, speaking in remarks published by Parliament, said the committee anticipated legal challenges from the outset.

If we do not adhere carefully to the Constitution, the Rules and the law, we expose the process to further legal challenges. It is therefore better to deal properly with a matter when it arises than to rush a decision and create difficulties later.

Gana also stated that the committee needed to be prepared for whatever the court decides on the review application, declining to discuss the issues in the media. The committee has used the period of legal uncertainty to finalise its terms of reference and work towards appointing an Evidence Leader, though Gana noted that more than 80 percent of the terms had been completed — a figure not independently corroborated. The case raises novel questions about evidentiary thresholds in presidential removal proceedings and the balance between parliamentary oversight and the presidency’s legal rights. The Western Cape High Court’s judgment on Ramaphosa’s review application will determine whether the impeachment process can proceed to public hearings.