The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA) have asked the Western Cape High Court to set aside a decision by Parliament's Section 89 impeachment committee to withdraw its recommendation of advocate Thandazani Griffiths Madonsela as chief evidence leader.

Arguments were heard on Tuesday 13 October and the hearing was set to continue today, Wednesday 14 October. The committee is opposing both applications. The case concerns how the committee made its decision, not the merits of the Phala Phala allegations against President Cyril Ramaphosa. This story is developing.

What the applicants argue

For the EFF, advocate Mfesane Ka-Siboto questioned whether the committee could reverse its own decision. He said the timing of Ramaphosa's objection was significant and asked why the ANC had not objected to Madonsela. He argued the reversal was irrational and in bad faith because nothing factual had changed, and summed up the case as: "The president complained."

For ALPA, advocate Michael Bishop argued the committee could not rely selectively on one consideration to justify the reversal. ALPA said it does not seek to force Madonsela's appointment, only to have the decision set aside and sent back to the committee.

What the committee says

Committee chair Makashule Gana, a Rise Mzansi MP, rejected the applicants' account. He said they misrepresented the committee's 1 September meeting, that the committee acted in line with National Assembly rules, and that it did not take decisions "behind closed doors." He said the terms of reference for the inquiry were in their final stages.

How we got here

The committee had earlier recommended Madonsela to lead the evidence in the impeachment inquiry into Ramaphosa over Phala Phala. In correspondence dated 18 August 2026, Ramaphosa objected, according to published reports. He questioned Madonsela's earlier role, including legal advice he gave the ANC on the impeachment issue, and cited his removal from the Judicial Service Commission in 2022 as a possible conflict of interest.

The committee then withdrew its recommendation, reopened the nomination process and paused the selection of a replacement until the court rules.

What we do not yet know

  • When the court will give judgment.
  • Ramaphosa's own response to the applicants' arguments; we have not seen one.
  • How long the inquiry would be delayed if the decision is set aside, or if it stands.
  • The courtroom account above comes from one report of the hearing and needs a second confirmation.