Ramaphosa said he believes Thandazani Madonsela is conflicted because Ramaphosa removed him from the Judicial Service Commission in 2022
President Cyril Ramaphosa at the Union Buildings in Pretoria on 4 January 2022. Picture: Jacques Nelles
Opposition parties have accused President Cyril Ramaphosa of attempting to derail Parliament’s impeachment inquiry after he formally objected to the appointment of Advocate Thandazani Madonsela as its chief evidence leader.
Ramaphosa’s objections, contained in a letter received by the impeachment committee on Tuesday night, concern Madonsela’s role in investigating allegations against him surrounding the theft of US dollars from his Phala Phala game farm in 2020.
Ramaphosa’s letter
In the letter, Ramaphosa argued that Madonsela was conflicted because he had removed him from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in 2022 and because Madonsela had provided legal advice to the ANC in Parliament on the impeachment matter.
Opposition parties, including the MK party which nominated Madonsela, rejected the president’s concerns. They said his intervention was a delaying tactic.
Opposition parties criticise president
EFF leader Julius Malema declared: “He is not going to choose his own judge. Typical of him, he is trying to find another way to delay this process. We are not going to allow that.”
ActionSA’s Lerato Ngobeni added: “South Africans should take note that the president is hiding from accountability. We cannot be held to ransom.”
ATM MP Vuyo Zungula described the move as “a delaying tactic”, while MK party parliamentary leader John Hlophe said: “A president who has nothing to hide should not be using all these delaying tactics. He is doing that in an attempt to avoid the inevitable. South Africans have a right to know what happened at Phala Phala.”
Conflicts
In his written submissions to the National Assembly, Ramaphosa invoked constitutional provisions and parliamentary rules to justify his intervention.
“These submissions are made in the spirit of section 41(1)(h), ex abundanti cautela, and with a view to avoiding, if possible, the need to later institute proceedings,” he wrote.
Ramaphosa raised two central conflicts of interest. First, his removal of Madonsela from the JSC after the chief justice interviews in 2022.
“In these circumstances, there is a reasonable apprehension that Adv. Madonsela SC may harbour a sense of grievance towards me and that he may act upon it,” he argued.
Second, Madonsela’s recent advisory role to the ANC on matters directly linked to the impeachment inquiry. ANC Secretary‑General Fikile Mbalula confirmed that the party’s representatives abstained from voting on Madonsela’s appointment because of this prior involvement.
Ramaphosa warned: “Ordinarily, a legal practitioner ought not to act in a matter that is substantially the same as one in which he or she previously advised a former client… particularly where confidential or privileged information may have been disclosed.”
He further cautioned that Madonsela’s prior insight into issues relevant to the inquiry could unfairly advantage him compared to any other evidence leader approaching the matter afresh.
“On the information presently available, therefore, it seems to me that the appointment of Adv. Madonsela SC will violate the above principles,” he submitted.
Legal opinion
On Wednesday, the impeachment committee resolved to seek a legal opinion on the matter, leaving the appointment unresolved.
Committee chairperson Makashule Gana noted: “One of the worst mistakes we can make as a committee is to believe the work we do is beyond scrutiny.”
Parallel process
Last week, the ANC raised alarm over what it called a “parallel process” by Parliament’s impeachment committee, warning that preparations for the Section 89 inquiry risked undermining judicial proceedings still before the Western Cape High Court.
Ramaphosa faces impeachment over the fallout from the 2020 Phala Phala scandal, when more than $500 000 was stolen from his game farm and allegedly concealed by his security detail.
ConCourt ruling
The Constitutional Court on 12 January 2026 dismissed his urgent bid to appeal a Western Cape High Court ruling that halted the impeachment inquiry, refusing direct access and declining leave to appeal.
Ramaphosa is seeking to overturn the panel’s findings that he has questions to answer regarding the theft of approximately $580 000 (about R9.6 million) from Phala Phala in February 2020.
The review is scheduled to be heard by the Western Cape High Court from 2 to 4 September.
