The EFF says Parliament is taking orders from the Presidency. Here is the dispute.

Explainer and analysis · 15 September 2026

The EFF’s charge is serious: Parliament changed course because the President objected, and then used its majority to defend the reversal in court.

The dispute concerns advocate Thandazani Madonsela and the decision to rescind his recommendation as chief evidence leader for the Section 89 impeachment inquiry. On 9 September the committee voted 19–9 to oppose legal challenges to that reversal, Daily Maverick reported.

EFF MP Omphile Maotwe described the danger as a legislature becoming “an extension of the Presidency”. The applications include challenges by the EFF and the African Legal Professionals Association in the Western Cape High Court.

The majority’s argument centres on a different danger: proceeding with a lawyer whose previous dealings could create a conflict of interest. The public does not have to guess entirely at that objection. President Cyril Ramaphosa set it out in a letter dated 18 August, published by Parliament.

What the President put in writing

Ramaphosa raised two concerns. First, he said he had removed Madonsela as his appointee to the Judicial Service Commission after the 2022 Chief Justice interviews. He argued that this history could create a reasonable apprehension of grievance.

Second, the President referred to ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula’s statement that Madonsela had recently advised the ANC on matters relating to the impeachment inquiry. Ramaphosa said he did not know the nature or extent of that advice, but raised the possibility of confidential information and a conflict with the proposed role.

These are the President’s submissions. They do not establish that Madonsela bears a grudge or would act improperly. They do explain why describing the objection only as political discomfort would leave readers without a material part of the record.

The two concerns also raise different questions. Previous professional disagreement with a president is not the same thing as advising a party on the very matter an inquiry will consider. Each requires examination on its own facts.

What Section 89 is for

Section 89 of the Constitution allows the National Assembly, with the required two-thirds support, to remove a president on specified grounds: a serious violation of the Constitution or law, serious misconduct, or inability to perform the functions of office.

An evidence leader assists the inquiry’s handling and presentation of evidence. The lawyer does not personally remove a president, and the choice of lawyer cannot settle the underlying allegations. The committee and Assembly retain their respective responsibilities.

The appointment nevertheless matters. The way evidence is assembled and tested affects whether the public can trust the eventual record. An inquiry can be undermined by an actual conflict, by unfair exclusion of a suitable person, or by the appearance that its subject controls the process.

The 19 votes do not settle the argument

Reporting on the meeting placed the ANC, DA, IFP, Freedom Front Plus and Patriotic Alliance among the parties supplying the majority, with the EFF, MK and ATM among those opposing it.

For the EFF, the central issue is whether the committee had a proper basis to reverse itself. For those defending the reversal, the question is whether the conflict concerns required that decision.

Winning a committee vote establishes what the committee decided. It cannot by itself demonstrate that the decision was lawful, rational or independent. Equally, a court application records a challenge; it does not turn the applicant’s account into a judgment.

The DA has a particular political question to answer alongside the ANC. Voters who expect it to enforce accountability inside the governing arrangement are entitled to an explanation of why it supported this decision. A convincing answer would identify the evidence and rule it relied on, rather than merely point to the size of the majority.

Independence has to be visible

Parliament’s published material includes the President’s letter, correspondence about Madonsela and a notice of urgent review dated 3 September. The existence of those records matters: this dispute can be examined against documents, beyond competing descriptions at a microphone.

The essential test is whether the committee applied a defensible standard consistently. It should be able to explain both why Madonsela was recommended and what justified taking that recommendation back. Those are questions about Parliament’s own conduct, whatever the eventual outcome of the presidential inquiry.

Ramaphosa is entitled to raise an objection. Parliament is responsible for deciding it independently. The EFF’s accusation will stand or fall on what happened between those two acts.

www.thepeoplesa.com