Madonsela rebuts president&#x2019s objections to his impeachment evidence leader appointment

Thandazani Madonsela has been recommended as the Section 89 impeachment committee evidence leader.

Thandazani Madonsela/LinkedIn

Advocate Thandazani Madonsela,SC,has described President Cyril Ramaphosa’s objections to his appointment as the Impeachment Committee’s chief evidence leader as unfounded.Ramaphosa wrote to the committee on the eve of their most recent meeting,citing a perceived conflict of interest. Opposition parties have accused Ramaphosa of delaying tactics and hiding from accountability.Advocate Thandazani Madonsela,has fired back at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s attempt to block his appointment as the Impeachment Committee’s chief evidence leader.

In a letter,he said Ramaphosa’s conflict-of-interest objections were unfounded and pointed out that the evidence leader “decides nothing”.

The committee met on Wednesday for,among other things,an update on the process to appoint Madonsela,who was selected by a majority vote,from which the ANC abstained,two weeks ago.

On Tuesday evening,Ramaphosa sent a letter to the committee chairperson,Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana,and the secretary to Parliament. In it,he made formal submissions on his opposition to Madonsela’s pending appointment. He said he wanted to avoid,“if possible,the need to later institute proceedings”.

ADVERTISEMENT

He cited the draft terms-of-reference requirement that the chief evidence leader must have no real or perceived conflict of interest – and submitted that Madonsela’s appointment “should not be confirmed”.

Ramaphosa raised two grounds. First,he said he removed Madonsela from the Judicial Service Commission in 2022 shortly after the chief justice interviews,creating “a reasonable apprehension that Adv Madonsela SC may harbour a sense of grievance towards me and that he may act upon it”.

Second,he cited the ANC’s prior legal advice from Madonsela on impeachment-related matters,arguing that a legal practitioner should not act in a matter substantially the same as one in which he previously advised a former client,and submitted that Madonsela may possess “prior insight into issues relevant to the enquiry which any other evidence leader,approaching the matter de novo,would not have”.

At Wednesday’s meeting,EFF leader Julius Malema said Ramaphosa was “not going to choose his own judge”,and ActionSA chief whip Lerato Ngobeni said he was “hiding from accountability” and doing “mischievous things.”

ADVERTISEMENT

READ | Ramaphosa objects to impeachment committee evidence leader

ATM president Vuyo Zungula called the objection a “delaying tactic.”

MK Party parliamentary leader John Hlophe said Ramaphosa’s objection “makes no sense”.

ANC MPs Cameron Dugmore,Faith Muthambi and Dikeledi Direko denied that Ramaphosa was trying to stall.

The parties belonging to the government of national unity,and the ACDP were amenable to allowing parliamentary legal services officials to study the letter and come back with advice at a future meeting.

Gana also preferred this course,saying he did not feel he had time to fully consider the letter and wanted to avoid a situation in which the matter goes to court.

“One of the worst mistakes we can make as a committee,” he said,“is to believe the work we do is beyond scrutiny.”

In his letter to Parliament’s senior legal adviser,Sueanne Isaac,Madonsela said he learnt of Ramaphosa’s submissions only from the media and that the letter was never provided to him.

He said every fact Ramaphosa raised had already been declared in writing on 27 July 2026,three weeks before Ramaphosa’s letter,and was before the committee when it voted on 5 August to recommend him.

Madonsela wrote:

The chief evidence leader has no vote,makes no finding,and recommends nothing.

He said recusal principles governing adjudicators did not apply because the role was not adjudicative – the evidence leader merely assists the committee to identify and place evidence,in hearings where the president may test it.

On the president’s claim that his 2022 removal from the Judicial Service Commission created a “reasonable apprehension” of grievance,Madonsela attached his 28 March 2022 reply to Ramaphosa,in which he thanked the president for “the courtesy of advance notice,” called it “an honour” to have served,and wished him “every success in your service to the nation”.

ADVERTISEMENT

On the ANC legal opinion,Madonsela said that the party,through secretary-general Fikile Mbalula,had stated that it did not question his integrity and did not object. “An abstention is not opposition,” he wrote.

The two opinions concerned procedural options for the interdict and whether National Assembly rules should require “fit and proper” members. Neither addressed the merits of the impeachment charges against Ramaphosa.

READ | Impeachment committee: MK Party wants to visit Phala Phala

Since the Constitutional Court effectively restarted the impeachment process when it ordered that an independent panel’s report,which found that Ramaphosa had a prima facie case to answer,be referred to an Impeachment Committee,Ramaphosa has litigated to stop the process.

He first lodged an application in the Western Cape High Court to review and set aside the independent panel’s report. This will be heard on 2 to 4 September.

When the committee didn’t accede to his request to stop its work,he lodged an interdict application,which was granted in a split decision by the same court. In terms of that order,the committee can’t have public impeachment hearings,but may continue with its preliminary work,such as appointing an evidence leader.

The committee selects a candidate for evidence leader,but Parliament’s administration handles the appointment process.