Efforts by Parliament to strengthen its impeachment framework have hit another stumbling block after MPs failed to reach agreement on whether members appointed to a presidential impeachment inquiry should be required to meet a “fit and proper” standard.
The issue was sharply debated during Wednesday’s National Assembly Rules Committee meeting, where MPs were considering recommendations arising from a recent review of Section 89 impeachment procedures. Instead of progressing, the meeting exposed deep divisions over both the necessity and implications of the proposed standard.
Tensions rise
At the heart of the dispute is a proposal originating from DA proposal in a Rules Sub-committee last week about MPs who are part of the impeachment inquiry passing the requirement of being “fit and proper”. The debate has also revived political tensions around the possible participation of impeached former judge and now MK Party MP John Hlophe on the committee.
DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach backed the proposal, arguing that the gravity of impeachment proceedings demands higher ethical expectations from those involved.
She maintained that the committee plays a critical constitutional role and, therefore, requires members who meet a stricter standard of integrity to preserve public confidence in its outcomes.
Caution against rushing the change
However, Parliamentary legal advisers Michael Prince and Sueanne Isaac cautioned against rushing the change, stressing the need for proper procedural steps.
Prince explained that although the introduction of such a requirement would be permissible under the rules framework, it carries significant implications that require both public input and consultation with political parties before adoption.
He also noted that Parliament has the constitutional authority under Section 57 to introduce such a standard, but warned that any rule must be clearly defined to withstand legal scrutiny.
According to their legal opinion: “The Constitution does not contain a provision that states that a person must be ‘fit and proper’ to be a member of the National Assembly. In terms of section 47 of the Constitution, every citizen qualified to vote for the National Assembly is eligible to serve as a member of the NA.”
Legal opinion rattles MPs
The legal advisers further raised unresolved questions, including who would assess whether an MP qualifies as “fit and proper”, what criteria would apply, and what remedies would exist for those excluded.
That caution drew resistance from several MPs.
ANC chief whip Mdumiseni Ntuli questioned the need for what he viewed as an extended consultation process, arguing that Parliament already had sufficient legal guidance to proceed.
DA leader in Parliament George Michalakis also opposed further delays, suggesting the matter should be finalised within the existing rules process.
Breytenbach, meanwhile, dismissed the call for additional consultation, insisting that similar restrictions have not been required in other parliamentary contexts.
ANC MP Dekeledi Direko raised concerns about the lack of clarity in the proposal, warning that the concept could become legally and practically difficult to enforce. She questioned who would ultimately determine whether an MP is “fit and proper”, Parliament or the courts, and called for clearer definition and guidance.
Ntuli later proposed that Parliament adopt the current draft rules and resolve interpretive challenges as they arise in practice.
MK Party chief whip Mzwanele Manyi took a firmer stance, arguing that the proposed clause should be removed entirely until there is full agreement on its meaning and application.
Ultimately, National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza stepped in to resolve the impasse, referring the matter back to the Rules Subcommittee for further refinement before it returns to the Rules Committee for final consideration.
- Efforts by Parliament to strengthen its impeachment framework have hit another stumbling block after MPs failed to reach agreement on whether members appointed to a presidential impeachment inquiry should be required to meet a “fit and proper” standard.
- The issue was sharply debated during Wednesday’s National Assembly Rules Committee meeting, where MPs were considering recommendations arising from a recent review of Section 89 impeachment procedures.
- Instead of progressing, the meeting exposed deep divisions over both the necessity and implications of the proposed standard.
- Tensions rise At the heart of the dispute is a proposal originating from DA proposal in a Rules Sub-committee last week about MPs who are part of the impeachment inquiry passing the requirement of being “fit and proper”.
- The debate has also revived political tensions around the possible participation of impeached former judge and now MK Party MP John Hlophe on the committee.
