Majority judgment dismisses challenge
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed two applications aimed at overturning Parliament’s decision to withdraw its recommendation of advocate Thandazani Madonsela as evidence leader in the Section 89 inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The applications were brought by the Economic Freedom Fighters and the African Legal Professionals Association. Both parties had challenged the decision of Parliament’s Impeachment Committee to reverse an earlier recommendation that Madonsela be appointed to lead evidence in the misconduct inquiry.
The ruling was delivered on Friday by Judge Chantel Fortuin. She said the full bench had been divided, but confirmed that the majority had rejected both applications. The outcome means the committee’s decision to cancel the recommendation remains in place, subject to any further legal steps that may follow.
“The dissenting judgment concludes that it would have reviewed and set aside the committee’s decision to rescind the recommendation with costs.”
A divided bench
Fortuin’s remarks highlighted that the court did not reach a unanimous view. The dissenting judgment would have ordered that the committee’s decision be reviewed and overturned, with costs. The majority, however, reached the opposite conclusion and dismissed the legal challenges.
The full judgments, including the reasons for the competing positions, are expected to be circulated to the parties. Until those reasons are available, the precise legal basis for the majority decision and the points of disagreement within the bench remain to be set out in detail.
| Issue | Position following ruling |
|---|---|
| Applicants | EFF and African Legal Professionals Association |
| Decision challenged | Withdrawal of the recommendation of Madonsela |
| Court outcome | Majority dismissed both applications |
| Bench | Full bench divided, with a dissenting judgment |
Dispute over the evidence leader
The court case arose from the committee’s decision to backtrack on its recommendation of Madonsela. The EFF and ALPA argued that the committee had acted in bad faith when it abandoned the earlier decision.
The dispute is tied to the Section 89 inquiry concerning allegations surrounding the theft of United States dollars from the President’s farm. Madonsela had been recommended for the role of evidence leader, a position connected to the presentation and management of evidence in the parliamentary misconduct process.
The source material does not indicate that the court made findings on the underlying allegations against the President. The litigation instead dealt with the committee’s decision-making process and whether the recommendation could lawfully be withdrawn.
Committee cited possible conflict
In opposing the applications, the committee said it had not understood the full significance of information disclosed by Madonsela about legal advice he had provided to a parliamentary study group dealing with the impeachment matter.
The committee later understood that the study group referred to the African National Congress. It argued that this connection could create a perception of a conflict of interest, and that this justified rescinding the recommendation.
That explanation was central to the committee’s defence of its reversal. The EFF and ALPA, by contrast, maintained that the committee’s conduct was improper and had been driven by bad faith. The majority ruling has now rejected their applications, although the written reasons will provide the fuller account of how the court assessed those competing arguments.
Proceedings remain under scrutiny
The legal challenge has also delayed activity by the Impeachment Committee. The committee has not met for more than two months since the applications were first launched against it.
That pause places added attention on the next steps in the parliamentary process. The court has determined the immediate challenge to the reversal of Madonsela’s recommendation, but the available ruling does not set out when the committee will meet again or how it will proceed after receiving the full judgment.
- The majority of the Western Cape High Court dismissed both applications.
- The EFF and ALPA had sought to reverse the committee’s decision.
- A dissenting judge would have set the decision aside with costs.
- The full written reasons are still to be circulated to the parties.
Why the written reasons matter
The split decision makes the forthcoming written judgments particularly important. They are expected to clarify how the court approached the committee’s explanation, the alleged conflict of interest and the claims that the reversal was taken in bad faith.
For now, the operative result is clear: Parliament’s Impeachment Committee is not required by this ruling to restore Madonsela’s recommendation as evidence leader. The judgment also records a disagreement within the bench, ensuring that the court’s reasoning, rather than only the order dismissing the applications, will remain central to the next phase of the dispute.
