The Section 89 Impeachment Committee has withdrawn the nomination of Advocate Thandazani Madonsela SC as its evidence leader, following an objection by President Cyril Ramaphosa over potential conflicts of interest.
The committee’s decision means Parliament will once again have to identify and appoint an evidence leader to assist with the inquiry into the president’s Phala Phala matter, after members considered legal advice on Ramaphosa’s objection.
ActionSA has strongly criticised the decision, describing it as a “classic display of Stalingrad delay tactics” that further postpones Parliament’s consideration of Ramaphosa’s accountability over the Phala Phala saga.
The party said the process had become a familiar cycle of “delay, dilute and distract”.
An evidence leader had already been nominated through a valid committee process, with the ANC abstaining from the vote.
The party’s secretary-general, Fikile Mbalula, later wrote to Parliament stating that he was not objecting to Madonsela’s nomination.
Ramaphosa subsequently objected to the appointment, prompting Parliament to seek legal advice before the committee reconsidered the nomination.
ActionSA said Parliament’s legal advice confirmed that Madonsela’s nomination had been validly decided and that the information available did not establish an actual conflict of interest.
However, the committee was required to consider whether subsequent information created a perceived conflict and to give the president procedural fairness.
ActionSA said that process had now been completed with the decision to rescind Madonsela’s nomination.
The party has also raised concerns about the voting patterns of parties that form part of the Government of National Unity.
“Particularly concerning is that GNU partners voted in concert to secure the rescission,” ActionSA said.
It singled out the Democratic Alliance’s position, arguing that the party had previously maintained that Madonsela’s nomination was the result of a fair and democratic committee process.
ActionSA said the DA nevertheless voted to overturn the outcome of that process.
“The DA cannot speak from both sides of its mouth: defending the legitimacy of the process while voting to overturn its outcome when the political arithmetic proves inconvenient,” the party said.
The party also questioned the ANC’s conduct during the process.
According to ActionSA, the ANC did not nominate a counter-candidate against Madonsela, while its members participated in the committee process and abstained when his nomination was put to a vote.
Mbalula subsequently wrote to Parliament regarding Madonsela’s previous legal work for the ANC.
ActionSA said this information was not raised by ANC members during the committee meeting.
It further pointed to Mbalula’s letter, which stated that it did not constitute an objection to Madonsela’s appointment and did not question his integrity or independence.
“Beware the double-speak,” ActionSA said.
Ramaphosa later exercised his right to object to the nomination.
ActionSA said it accepted that the president was entitled to procedural fairness and that his objection had to be considered.
“Procedural fairness cannot now become procedural infinity,” the party said.
The party warned that Parliament could simply be replacing one deadlock with another.
Madonsela has now been removed with the support of GNU partners, while Advocate Kate Hofmeyr SC, who was initially nominated by ActionSA and later by the DA, is unlikely to secure majority support from the Progressive Caucus led by the EFF and MK Party, according to ActionSA.
The party warned that if GNU parties block a candidate acceptable to one political bloc while the Progressive Caucus blocks another, the result could be further delays.
“As the African proverb warns: When two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. In this fight, the grass is presidential accountability,” ActionSA said.
The party also cautioned against placing too much emphasis on the role of the evidence leader.
It said the evidence leader does not determine Ramaphosa’s fate, make the committee’s findings or vote on its recommendations.
Those responsibilities rest with Parliament.
ActionSA argued that Parliament was now at risk of spending more time deciding who would present the evidence than examining the evidence itself.
The party described this as “Stalingrad by procedure”, saying one objection had led to another legal opinion, another meeting, another vote and now another appointment process.
It said the substantive preparatory process and the inquiry itself remained stalled.
ActionSA acknowledged that the committee had made its decision on Madonsela and said it disagreed with the outcome.
However, it said the matter should now be closed and that there should be no restarting of the process or prolonged negotiations over his replacement.
“The Evidence Leader may change. The evidence does not. Neither does President Ramaphosa’s obligation to account,” ActionSA said.
The party called for a competent and independent evidence leader to be appointed urgently so that Parliament could proceed with the work expected of it by South Africans.
