Parliament’s impeachment committee on Wednesday said it would oppose two court applications challenging its decision to withdraw its recommendation of Adv Thandazani Madonsela SC as evidence leader.
It also agreed to hold off on recommending another evidence leader until the legal challenges have been dealt with.
The vote was 19 to nine.
The committee is conducting the Section 89 inquiry into whether President Cyril Ramaphosa should be removed from office over the Phala Phala scandal, in which more than half-a-million dollars were stolen from his Limpopo game farm in February 2020.
An independent panel chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo found in 2022 that Ramaphosa had a case to answer over the incident.
The committee cannot yet hold public hearings.
Ramaphosa won an interim interdict in July preventing it from proceeding while he challenges the Ngcobo panel’s report in the Western Cape High Court.
Judgment was reserved on Friday.
The evidence leader is the advocate who would gather and present evidence to the MPs on the committee.
The committee recommended Madonsela for the post on August 5, but reversed that decision last Tuesday by 18 votes to nine after Ramaphosa objected that Madonsela had a conflict of interest.
The EFF and the African Legal Professionals Association both approached the same court this week, asking it to set aside the committee’s decision.
On Wednesday, the committee resolved to oppose both applications.
“We are going to oppose the two applications,” chair Makashule Gana said after the vote.
The ANC, DA, IFP, Patriotic Alliance, Freedom Front Plus, ACDP and Al Jama-ah voted to oppose.
The MK Party, EFF, ActionSA, BOSA, ATM and UAT voted to abide by the court’s decision.
ANC MP Cameron Dugmore said the committee had been given two lawful options in a legal opinion and had picked one of them.
“We acted fairly, we acted rationally,” he said.
DA MP George Michalakis said the applications could affect the powers of parliamentary committees.
“A judgement in favour of the applicants would have serious repercussions for parliamentary procedure and the powers of committees,” he said.
“That will have a repercussion for the powers of parliamentary committees across the board.”
Michalakis said parliamentary rules allowed a committee to rescind an earlier decision when new information came to light.
Opposition MPs said the committee was spending public money defending a decision it should never have taken.
EFF MP Andile Mngxitama told Gana he should carry the costs himself.
“In the event that this committee, through a vote, determines that it will oppose this matter, that the cost of that litigation be borne by you [personally],” he said.
“There is no rational basis for this committee to oppose this litigation.”
He said the committee had reversed itself only because the executive told it to.
“A decision of this committee cannot be unmade because the head of the executive objects to it,” he said.
“When we change our own resolution because the executive says so, we’re no longer a legislature. We are simply an extension of the presidency.”
ATM leader Vuyo Zungula said the reversal cast Madonsela in a light he did not deserve.
He said it “reeks of undermining Black people, suggesting Black people lack integrity and the ethics that are required”.
ActionSA MP Atholl Trollip said the ANC had abstained on August 5 and then used its numbers once Ramaphosa objected.
He said what was on display was “GNU majoritarianism manifesting itself in protectionism”.
The committee then turned to the appointment of a replacement.
MK Party MP John Hlophe said it would be “a futile exercise to start any discussion concerning the appointment of the evidence leader” while the decision that created the vacancy was before the court.
Zungula said a court could reinstate Madonsela within weeks.
“Are we then going to come back and try and undo that?” he said.
He said a new appointee would already have turned down other work to take the brief.
Senior parliamentary legal adviser Suanne Isaac told MPs neither applicant had sought an interdict.
“There’s no legal impediment for this committee proceeding to appoint an evidence leader,” she said.
“However, that does not stop the committee from taking a practical decision.”
She said the committee should record its reasons if it chose to wait.
Patriotic Alliance MP Marlon Daniels was the only member who pressed for the process to continue, urging fresh nominations and more than one name to the secretary to Parliament.
Every other party backed holding off.
Gana said a consensus had emerged and refused to put it to a vote.
He said the committee was “applying common sense and not proceed with the recommendation of the evidence leader” though nothing barred it from proceeding.
Three nominees remained available. Their names were not read into the record.
MPs heard that Madonsela wrote to Gana last Thursday accepting the withdrawal, thanking the committee for considering him and wishing it well.
Both applications are provisionally set down for next Friday.
Isaac said the timetable was before the deputy judge president, with a case management meeting likely on Thursday or Friday.
The committee spent the rest of the sitting on its draft terms of reference, accepting an ACDP proposal from Steve Swart fixing the standard of proof for the inquiry.
IOL
