Impeachment Committee to fight back as EFF, ALPA challenge Madonsela U-turn

Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee has resolved to oppose two court applications seeking to overturn its decision to withdraw, Advocate Thandazani Madonsela, as its preferred evidence leader in the impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa.

The committee reached a decision by vote on Wednesday, with 19 members voting in favour of opposing separate applications brought by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA).

The legal showdown follows the committee’s reversal on 1 September, when it rescinded its earlier recommendation that Madonsela be appointed as evidence leader.

The decision came after Ramaphosa objected to Madonsela’s involvement, raising concerns about a possible conflict of interest.

The EFF has since approached the Western Cape High Court on an urgent basis, arguing that the committee acted unlawfully to reverse its decision.

The party argues that Madonsela is not a decision-maker in the impeachment process and that the committee therefore misconstrued the law in treating him as though he were.

The EFF has also asked the court to set aside any subsequent recommendation made by the committee to appoint another evidence leader.

The Red Berets initially nominated Madonsela in July, saying his appointment would help protect Parliament’s independence and strengthen its ability to hold the executive accountable “without fear or favour”.

EFF Statement On The Filing Of An Urgent Application To Review And Set Aside The Decision Of The Impeachment Committee To Rescind Its Decision To Appoint Adv. Griffiths Madonsela As Evidence Leader.

—The reasons proffered by Ramaphosa are frivolous and should have never been… pic.twitter.com/dJTgSbunrn

— Economic Freedom Fighters (@EFFSouthAfrica) September 9, 2026

Madonsela has also maintained in a letter to the committee that he has no conflict of interest, despite President Cyril Ramaphosa’s concerns over his previous involvement in the African National Congress’s (ANC) impeachment process and his removal from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).

Meanwhile, ALPA has launched a separate application based on similar arguments, accusing the committee of acting arbitrarily, in bad faith and for an ulterior purpose.

Despite the pending litigation, Parliament’s senior legal adviser, SuAnne Isaacs, says the committee is not legally barred from continuing its search for an evidence leader.

“If they are successful in their application, a subsequent appointment decision will also be set aside,” Isaacs said.

She says the committee nevertheless remains within its rights to appoint an evidence leader to begin preparatory work, provided it acts in accordance with any court order.

AS IT HAPPENED: Members of @ParliamentofRSA’s #Impeachment Committee for #Section89enquiry will now vote on whether the committee should oppose the legal challenges against it. @Makashule pic.twitter.com/wgkhpYEvZn

— Impeachment Committee on Section 89 Enquiry (@Impeachment_S89) September 9, 2026