The party questioned why Ramaphosa's objection derailed Madonsela's nomination.
A view of the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town. Picture: iStock
The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA) have challenged parliament’s decision to withdraw advocate Thandazani Griffiths Madonsela’s nomination as chief evidence leader in the impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal, arguing that the move was irrational and unlawful.
The Western Cape High Court in Cape Town heard arguments from the two organisations on Tuesday, 13 October 2026, as part of a two-day hearing into their review applications against the Section 89 impeachment committee.
Phala Phala impeachment committee rescinds evidence leader nomination
At the centre of the dispute is the committee’s decision last month to reverse its earlier recommendation in favour of Madonsela, following objections raised by Ramaphosa over his suitability for the role.
In correspondence sent to the committee on 18 August 2026, the president questioned Madonsela’s previous involvement in the matter, including his provision of legal advice to the African National Congress (ANC) on the impeachment issue.
The president also referred to Madonsela’s removal from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in 2022, suggesting that the circumstances surrounding the matter could give rise to a potential conflict of interest.
Following Ramaphosa’s objection, the committee withdrew its recommendation and reopened the nomination process.
It has since put the selection of a replacement evidence leader on hold pending the outcome of the court proceedings.
The committee is opposing the applications brought by the EFF and ALPA, both of which are seeking to have its decision reviewed and set aside.
EFF argues president’s objection prompted reversal
Appearing for the EFF, advocate Mfesane Ka-Siboto questioned whether the committee was legally entitled to reverse a decision it had already taken.
He argued that the timing of Ramaphosa’s objection was significant, particularly because the president had allegedly been aware of the circumstances now being cited as the basis to challenge Madonsela’s appointment.
“I think that’s a crucial fact. The president knew he appointed Mr Madonsela to the JSC. He knew that,” the lawyer told the court.
Ka-Siboto also questioned why the ANC had not objected to Madonsela’s nomination, given that the party was aware of his previous legal work for the organisation.
The EFF’s legal representative maintained that the manner in which the committee exercised its power was irrational and in bad faith, even if it possessed the authority to reverse its decision.
“All that simply happened is that the president complained.
“That’s the upshot of our contention, that there is nothing that changed factually that warrants the deviation.”
ALPA wants decision sent back to committee
ALPA’s legal representative advocate Michael Bishop also challenged the reasoning behind the committee’s decision, arguing that it could not selectively rely on one consideration to justify reversing its earlier recommendation.
He emphasised that ALPA was not seeking to “dictate” the outcome of the process of selecting the evidence leader nor asking the court to compel the committee to appoint Madonsela.
“We do not ask for substitution. The relief we ask for will not mean advocate Madonsela will be appointed.
“What we ask for is setting aside this decision and the effect would be to remit the question to the committee.
“It will have to reconsider and take a unlawful, rational decision about whether to finish the appointment of advocate Madonsela or not,” Bishop explained.
The hearing is scheduled to continue on Wednesday, 14 October, when the court is expected to hear further arguments in the matter.
Section 89 committee chair defends decision-making process
Elswhere in the courtroom, committee chairperson and Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana rejected the characterisation of events presented by the EFF and ALPA during their arguments.
Gana told the media he believed the applicants had misrepresented aspects of what transpired during the committee’s meeting on 1 September, when the decision to reverse Madonsela’s nomination was considered.
He expressed confidence that the committee would successfully defend its position, insisting that it had been made in accordance with the rules governing the National Assembly.
Gana also denied that he had acted independently or made decisions “behind closed doors” to reverse the nomination.
“It was the decision of the committee to refer the letter to the legal services to show that everything that we do will always be transparent so that each and every South African can see every step of the way in how we execute our duties in parliament,” the chairperson said.
The Rise Mzansi MP further revealed that the committee was in the final stages of preparing its terms of reference.
