Impeachment committee ‘alive’ to lengthy litigation as Ramaphosa wins battle against evidence leader

Parliament’s section 89 impeachment committee against President Cyril Ramaphosa is “alive” to the reality that he may litigate against it on every decision or process it embarks on during proceedings against him.

This is according to impeachment committee chairperson Makashule Gana, who briefed the media on Tuesday after a meeting by the body.

This was after the impeachment committee resolved to rescind its decision to appoint Adv Thandazani Madonsela as its evidence leader following objections from Ramaphosa.

Ramaphosa last month opposed the committee’s decision to appoint Madonsela as its evidence leader, citing a possible conflict of interest and apprehension of bias on the senior counsel’s part.

The president argued he had previously removed Madonsela as his representative at the Judicial Service Commission and that he had advised the ANC on how to deal with the section 89 impeachment proceedings against him stemming from the Phala Phala matter.

During the Tuesday meeting, it emerged that Madonsela had written a letter to the impeachment committee last week asking it to reject Ramaphosa’s opposition of his appointment.

But after a lengthy discussion during the meeting, the committee resolved to rescind its decision to appoint Madonsela, following advice from parliament’s internal lawyers.

The committee has been grappling with this and other preparatory work for the past three months.

Parties have now been given until close of business on Friday to propose new names to be considered for appointment at another meeting scheduled for next Wednesday after a vote on the matter.

This was after it emerged that the ANC body Madonsela had advised in the impeachment committee was actually its “study group”, or MPs serving the same committee.

The ANC had wanted Madonsela to be dropped while other parties opposed the move, arguing that doing so would amount to another delaying tactic on the part of Ramaphosa and his party’s MPs.

Gana on Tuesday said that their rescission of Madonsela’s appointment did not necessarily mean Ramaphosa was a referee and player in his own match, or dictating terms of engagement.

I expected that there will be instances where decisions of the committee can be taken to court by any person. I am alive to the reality that there will be challenges so my kind of default is that there will be challenges.

—  Impeachment committee chairperson Makashule Gana

“Do I see the president as dictating the terms? No,” said Gana.

“So when there’s any communication that comes to the committee, we ask legal (services) to look at it. And it was legal that found in the disclosure that Adv Madonsela had made, he was not explicit (enough) that he was advising the ANC and there were members that had voted to support his nomination and had they known that it was the ANC that he was advising they would have taken a different view. And that is what the legal opinion we received from legal services came to, and today the rescinded that decision.”

Gana said he was expecting more legal challenges from the president against his committee’s preparatory work.

“With a process like this, it is to be expected,” he said.

“We expected that with the work that we do, every step of the way there will be potential challenges, legally.

“I expected that there will be instances where decisions of the committee can be taken to court by any person. I am alive to the reality that there will be challenges so my kind of default is that there will be challenges.

“So that’s why in all things we do, there has to be procedural fairness.”

The Western Cape high court was on Wednesday scheduled to hear oral arguments in Ramaphosa’s application seeking for the section 89 Phala Phala report to be reviewed and set aside.

Should he win that court case, the impeachment proceedings against him would come to a halt.