15 October 2026 · Reporting verified against the dated sources below.
A fight over process, not yet the underlying allegations
The Western Cape High Court heard arguments on 13 and 14 October 2026 over Parliament’s decision to withdraw a recommendation that advocate Thandazani Madonsela lead evidence in the Section 89 inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala matter.
The hearing is about the legality and rationality of the committee’s appointment process. It is not a determination that Ramaphosa committed an impeachable offence, nor a ruling on the merits of the underlying allegations concerning foreign currency stolen from his farm.
Why the recommendation changed
Madonsela had disclosed that he previously provided legal advice to the ANC on the impeachment matter. After Ramaphosa objected to the recommendation, citing a potential conflict, the committee withdrew its earlier support.
The Economic Freedom Fighters and the African Legal Professionals Association argue that the committee knew of Madonsela’s prior work before its initial recommendation and acted irrationally in reversing course. They want the reversal set aside.
Parliament’s answer in court
Representing the committee on Wednesday, advocate Kameel Premhid argued that the recommendation had not become a final appointment and that the committee was entitled to reconsider it. Parliament disputes the claim that its decision was unlawful or made in bad faith.
Committee chairperson Makashule Gana has also rejected accusations of improper conduct. The applicants and the committee are presenting opposing legal arguments; neither side’s interpretation should be reported as a court finding.
The accountability question
The dispute has delayed the choice of the person who would question witnesses and help assemble the evidence for the Section 89 process. That role matters because it affects the inquiry’s ability to proceed fairly and credibly.
The court’s eventual ruling will determine the status of the committee’s reversal. It will not, by itself, answer the substantive Phala Phala questions. Those remain for the constitutionally prescribed processes and any other competent investigative authorities.
