‘The president complained’: EFF challenges reversal of Phala Phala evidence leader nomination

The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the African Legal Professionals Association (ALPA) have challenged parliament's decision to remove advocate Thandazani Griffiths Madonsela from consideration as chief evidence leader in the impeachment inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa's Phala Phala scandal. The Western Cape High Court in Cape Town is hearing arguments from both organizations on Tuesday, 13 October 2026, as part of a two-day review of their applications against the Section 89 impeachment committee.

The dispute centers around the committee's reversal of its earlier recommendation to retain Madonsela, following objections raised by Ramaphosa regarding his suitability for the role. Ramaphosa questioned Madonsela's previous involvement in the matter, including his legal advice to the ANC on the impeachment issue and his removal from the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) in 2022.

The committee withdrew its recommendation and reopened the nomination process, putting the selection of a replacement evidence leader on hold pending the court's decision. The EFF argues that the president's objection was the trigger for the reversal, while ALPA maintains that the committee cannot selectively rely on one factor to justify changing its earlier decision.

The EFF's legal representative emphasized that the timing of Ramaphosa's objection was significant, given that the president was aware of Madonsela's past legal work with the ANC. ALPA's lawyer highlighted that the committee's decision to reverse the nomination was based on a single consideration, which did not warrant a deviation from its original recommendation.

The committee chairperson, Makashule Gana, defended the decision-making process, stating that it was made in accordance with the rules governing the National Assembly and that the committee acted transparently by referring the matter to legal services for review. The hearing is expected to continue on Wednesday, 14 October, with the court likely to hear further arguments in the matter.