Impeachment committee rules out panel testimony, moves to appeal High Court ruling

Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee has ruled out calling the authors of the contentious independent panel report, while a legal opinion on whether President Cyril Ramaphosa can be compelled to testify is still being finalised.

The committee voted on Wednesday not to invite the panel members led by retired Chief Justice, Sandile Ngcobo, to appear before it, after receiving legal advice that doing so could compromise it’s constitutional role. Sixteen members voted to proceed without the panel, while eight supported delaying the decision to seek additional independent legal advice.

The committee is in the preparatory phase of its inquiry into whether Ramaphosa has a case to answer over the 2020 Phala Phala scandal, amid mounting legal challenges to the process.

Parliamentary legal adviser, Michael Prince, told Members of Parliament that the independent panel’s role ended once it submitted its report to the National Assembly in December 2022.

“Rule 129(g) confines the panel to a sifting function, expressly precluding an oral hearing. Rule 129, by contrast, assigns a substantive fact-finding function. In other words, testing evidence and establishes the veracity of the charges to the impeachment committee. Those two functions are structurally distinct. A request for the panel to brief the impeachment committee on its report would require the panel to explain and, in substance, elaborate on its findings. This risks collapsing the separation of the panel’s preliminary sifting role and the committee’s independent fact-finding role,” Prince said.

The committee is now expected to rely on an evidence leader to guide the presentation and testing of evidence during the inquiry.

The committee’s work continues under the shadow of an ongoing legal battle after Ramaphosa successfully secured an interim interdict last week halting public hearings pending the outcome of his review application.

Meanwhile, Parliament’s legal services are expected to finalise an opinion by Wednesday on whether Ramaphosa can be compelled to appear before the committee if he chooses not to testify voluntarily.

Parliamentary legal adviser, Sueanne Isaac, also provided clarity on the Western Cape High Court’s interim order, stressing that it only prohibits public hearings and does not prevent the committee from carrying out preparatory work.

“On our interpretation, the Committee may continue with preparatory work that does not involve the hearing of evidence. The preparatory work may include the appointment of Evidence Leaders, the finalisation of the terms of reference, and preparation for the enquiry,” said Isaac.

Meanwhile, the committee has also agreed to appeal the majority judgment of the Western Cape High Court, with 14-members voting in favour of the motion. 

This comes after the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party, United Africans Transformation (UAT), the African Transformation Movement (ATM) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) moved to approach the Constitutional Court to challenge the interdict.

The parties argue that the High Court unlawfully interfered with Parliament’s constitutional oversight powers by stopping part of the impeachment process before the committee had reached any findings.

HAPPENING NOW: @ParliamentofRSA’s #Impeachment Committee for #Section89 enquiry resolves to not call authors of independent panel to present their report. @Makashule pic.twitter.com/1wrczl8G9n

— Impeachment Committee on Section 89 Enquiry (@Impeachment_S89) July 29, 2026

EFF Statement on the Direct Appeal against the Western Cape High Court Judgment Interdicting the Work of the Impeachment Committee

—The EFF maintains that the majority judgment of the Western Cape High Court is fundamentally flawed and ought to be overturned. The High Court… pic.twitter.com/FxOXaYr8s4

— Economic Freedom Fighters (@EFFSouthAfrica) July 28, 2026