A proposed overhaul of Parliament’s impeachment rules has sparked sharp disagreement among political parties over whether MPs should retain the final say on removing a president from office after an impeachment committee has found serious wrongdoing.
The debate unfolded during a meeting of Parliament’s Rules Committee on Wednesday when MPs considered amendments flowing from the recent Constitutional Court judgment on the Section 89 impeachment process linked to the Phala Phala matter.
At the centre of the dispute are two provisions contained in the proposed Rule 129P.
Rule 129P(3) states that the National Assembly “is bound by a finding in a report of the Impeachment Committee regarding the charge(s) in the motion calling for the removal of the President from office in terms of section 89(1) of the Constitution”.
However, Rule 129P(4) simultaneously provides that the Assembly “is not bound by a recommendation in a report of the Impeachment Committee as to whether or not the President should be removed from office”. It further states that MPs may only vote to remove the president if the committee has found that at least one of the charges has been established.
Manyi flags contradiction
MK Party chief whip Mzwanele Manyi argued that the two provisions contradict each other.
According to Manyi, Rule 129P(3) compels Parliament to accept the committee’s findings on whether a president committed impeachable conduct, while Rule 129P(4) allows MPs to disregard the logical consequence of those findings by voting against removal.
“Rule 129P(3) and P(4) undermine the consequences of a proven misconduct,” Manyi argued.
He said the provisions create an irrational outcome whereby Parliament could accept that a president committed a serious constitutional violation or misconduct but still allow that president to remain in office.
“This means that Parliament may accept that a president committed an impeachable conduct but then allow him to remain in office. That becomes irrational. This is what the Constitutional Court was trying to deal with,” Manyi said.
‘Power in hands of National Assembly’
His interpretation, however, met resistance from other parties who argued that the Constitution ultimately places the removal decision in the hands of the National Assembly rather than an impeachment committee.
Freedom Front Plus MP Wouter Wessels said impeachment and removal are two separate constitutional stages.
“Impeachment is not removal; it is a state of accusation,” Wessels told the committee.
He explained that the independent panel established under the rules merely determines whether there is prima facie evidence that the grounds for removal contemplated in Section 89(1) exist. Once sufficient evidence is found, the impeachment process proceeds and the president effectively stands accused.
But Wessels argued that the Constitution requires the final decision on removal to rest with the Assembly itself.
“We cannot in any circumstances have a rule which says the recommendations by the committee on whether the president must be removed or not should be accepted and not voted upon. That would be unconstitutional,” he said.
ActionSA parliamentary leader Athol Trollip backed Wessels’ position, warning that Parliament could not delegate such a significant constitutional power to a committee.
“It allows MPs to vote on the findings of the impeachment committee to remove the president or not, and we cannot delegate that to a committee of 31 people. That would not be constitutional,” Trollip said.
ConCourt ruling
The proposed rules stem from a Constitutional Court judgment delivered on May 8 2026, which found aspects of Parliament’s existing Section 89 process unconstitutional and required amendments to the impeachment framework.
The subcommittee tasked with reviewing the rules has recommended adoption of the revised provisions, which preserve the Assembly’s ultimate authority to decide whether a president should be removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote.
Instead of adopting rules, National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza says that such matters of contention need to be dealt with, she proposed the subcommittee on rules should meet as soon as possible to mull over this.
This proposal was accepted by parties.
- A proposed overhaul of Parliament’s impeachment rules has sparked sharp disagreement among political parties over whether MPs should retain the final say on removing a president from office after an impeachment committee has found serious wrongdoing.
- The debate unfolded during a meeting of Parliament’s Rules Committee on Wednesday when MPs considered amendments flowing from the recent Constitutional Court judgment on the Section 89 impeachment process linked to the Phala Phala matter.
- At the centre of the dispute are two provisions contained in the proposed Rule 129P.
- Rule 129P(3) states that the National Assembly “is bound by a finding in a report of the Impeachment Committee regarding the charge(s) in the motion calling for the removal of the President from office in terms of section 89(1) of the Constitution”.
- However, Rule 129P(4) simultaneously provides that the Assembly “is not bound by a recommendation in a report of the Impeachment Committee as to whether or not the President should be removed from office”.
