Court Rejects Challenge to Phala Phala Evidence Leader
The Western Cape High Court dismissed an EFF and ALPA application over the withdrawn nomination of Thandazani Madonsela.
Updated on Nov. 13, 2026 in Legislative Policy
The Western Cape High Court in Cape Town rejected an application by the EFF and ALPA challenging the Section 89 committee's withdrawal of Advocate Thandazani Griffiths Madonsela's nomination as chief evidence leader in the Phala Phala impeachment inquiry involving President Cyril Ramaphosa. The court ruled on 13 November 2026 after proceedings over two days.
Why it matters
The ruling leaves the Section 89 committee's reopened nomination process in place while the selection of a replacement evidence leader is on hold. Ramaphosa had objected to Madonsela's nomination, citing a potential conflict of interest arising from her prior legal advice to the ANC on the impeachment issue.
The court heard the matter over two days, and the Section 89 committee has put selection of a replacement evidence leader on hold pending the outcome. The committee withdrew its recommendation after Ramaphosa's objection of 18 August 2026.
The players
Cyril Ramaphosa
Cyril Ramaphosa is the President of South Africa, and the Phala Phala impeachment inquiry concerns his conduct in office.
Thandazani Griffiths Madonsela
Thandazani Griffiths Madonsela is an advocate whose nomination as chief evidence leader was withdrawn by the Section 89 committee.
Western Cape High Court
The Western Cape High Court is the Cape Town court that heard and rejected the application challenging the withdrawal of Madonsela's nomination.
The details
Ramaphosa objected to Madonsela's nomination in a letter dated 18 August 2026, questioning her prior legal advice to the ANC on the impeachment issue and referring to her removal from the Judicial Service Commission in 2022. The committee withdrew its recommendation and reopened the nomination process.
Timeline
18 August 2026: Ramaphosa writes objecting to Madonsela's nomination.
13 and 14 October 2026: Court proceedings are held over two days.
13 November 2026: The Western Cape High Court rejects the EFF and ALPA challenge.
Political Context
The Section 89 process governs the impeachment inquiry, and the EFF and ALPA challenge sought to contest how the committee handled the evidence leader nomination. The court's rejection leaves the committee's reopened process to proceed under the constitutional framework.
The ruling determines that the Section 89 committee's reopened nomination process continues, so the choice of a replacement evidence leader for the Phala Phala inquiry will follow that process. The outcome affects how the impeachment inquiry into the president proceeds.
The takeaway
Procedural disputes over who leads an impeachment inquiry can delay its progress, so readers should watch whether the committee names a replacement evidence leader. The court's ruling narrows the immediate legal challenge but leaves the next appointment open.
Further reading
Explore more on Legislative Policy to see how parliamentary procedures shape impeachment inquiries in South Africa.
