Parliament’s impeachment committee into President Cyril Ramaphosa is expected to sit on Monday to elect its chairperson, despite the National Assembly seeking legal advice on how the president’s court challenge to the Section 89 report affects the process.
The way forward emerged during a National Assembly programming committee meeting chaired by Cedric Frolick, where opposition MPs pressed Parliament’s administration for clarity on whether the impeachment process would proceed or be held back pending Ramaphosa’s review application.
Secretary to the National Assembly Masibulele Xaso eventually confirmed that the committee was expected to meet on Monday, after MPs questioned delays in convening the structure and warned that Parliament’s own rules required it to begin its work within a prescribed period.
“The intention is that the committee sits on Monday,” Xaso told the meeting.
He said communication would be sent to members during the course of the day.
The committee was established after the National Assembly resolved to process the matter arising from the Section 89 independent panel report, which found that Ramaphosa may have a case to answer over the Phala Phala scandal.
But MPs complained that while the Speaker had already issued correspondence naming the 31 members of the committee, there had been no clear communication on when the committee would meet.
EFF MP Hlengiwe Mkalipi was the first to raise the alarm, asking when the impeachment committee would start its work and whether its programme had been built into the National Assembly schedule.
She also asked what Parliament’s plan was after Ramaphosa approached the courts to challenge the Section 89 report.
Mkalipi said MPs needed a clear indication on whether Parliament intended to proceed with the impeachment process or wait for the courts.
“What is the plan of Parliament since we have seen that the President has taken this matter to court trying to challenge Section 89 of this report?” Mkalipi asked.
She said Parliament had to provide guidance on whether the impeachment process would start or whether the institution would wait for the outcome of Ramaphosa’s review.
ATM leader insists Parliament must sit
ATM leader Vuyo Zungula followed, saying the rules required the impeachment committee to sit within five days of its establishment.
Zungula said the Speaker had communicated the names of the 31 MPs appointed to the committee, but by Thursday there was still no communication on when the committee would begin.
He warned that the delay was not merely administrative because the country was in an election year and MPs would soon be involved in party political programmes.
Zungula said late communication could disadvantage members and undermine the work of the committee.
He argued that Parliament had no legal basis to delay the committee’s first sitting because there was no court order stopping it from proceeding.
“There is no court order that has said that the committee must not sit,” Zungula said.
He said there was also nothing before Parliament that had directed or raised questions about the committee not sitting.
The exchange placed the immediate future of the impeachment process at the centre of the programming meeting: whether Parliament would assert its own constitutional process while Ramaphosa pursued his review or whether the president’s court action would slow down the accountability mechanism already triggered inside the legislature.
Xaso initially confirmed that Parliament’s rules did provide a timeframe and said communication would be sent to members.
But Parliament’s legal adviser, Advocate Frank Jenkins, then told MPs that the institution was taking legal advice from counsel on the papers served by Ramaphosa.
Taking legal advice for counsel
“Concerning the response to the papers served yesterday by the president, we are taking legal advice from counsel on what the present procedures [are] and how that has been influenced by this application,” Jenkins said.
He said Parliament was waiting for that advice before it advised members and the committee. That response did not resolve the issue.
Zungula pressed further, asking where the legal advice would be tabled and whether all political parties in Parliament would be given an opportunity to engage with it.
He said the issue affected the entire institution, not only the office of the Speaker.
“This situation involves all 18 political parties in Parliament,” Zungula said.
He argued that parties had to be engaged on the way forward so that Parliament, as an institution, could decide how to respond to Ramaphosa’s court challenge.
Mkalipi also returned to the matter, saying there appeared to be two competing realities: Parliament’s rules required the committee to start, while Ramaphosa’s review had prompted legal consultation.
She said the central difficulty was that the impeachment committee had not yet started its work.
Mkalipi argued that the committee should at least sit and elect its chairperson so that any further communication on the process could be channelled through the proper parliamentary structure.
“At least we know there’s a committee now in place,” she said.
She said whatever Parliament later communicated about Ramaphosa’s review and the impeachment process should be communicated through the impeachment committee.
Test of Parliament’s institutional posture
Frolick, who chaired the meeting, acknowledged the constitutional implications of the matter and said once there was a way forward, it had to be communicated timeously in relation to the establishment and work of the committee.
He later accepted Xaso’s response as the clear procedural position: the committee would sit on Monday to elect its chairperson.
The confirmation is significant because it indicates that Parliament is not, at this stage, treating Ramaphosa’s review application as an automatic bar to the impeachment process.
However, the legal advice sought by Parliament could still shape the scope, pace and direction of the committee’s work after its first sitting.
The committee’s first meeting is therefore likely to become an important test of Parliament’s institutional posture.
It will show whether the National Assembly intends to allow the impeachment machinery to move forward unless stopped by a court or whether Ramaphosa’s litigation will effectively freeze the process before it begins in earnest.
For now, the immediate way forward is that the committee must meet, elect a chairperson and place the impeachment process inside a formal parliamentary structure.
Only after that will Parliament have to confront the larger question: whether Ramaphosa’s review is a reason to pause the work or whether the legislature must proceed with its own constitutional mandate until a court orders otherwise.
- Parliament’s impeachment committee on President Cyril Ramaphosa will meet Monday to elect its chairperson despite Ramaphosa’s court challenge to the Section 89 report.
- The delay in convening the committee has raised concerns among opposition MPs, who emphasized that parliamentary rules require the committee to start work within a specific timeframe.
- Legal advice is being sought on how Ramaphosa’s court review affects the impeachment process, but no court order currently prevents the committee from proceeding.
- MPs argue the committee should at least elect a chairperson to formalize the process and channel further communications properly.
- The committee’s first meeting will test whether Parliament will continue the impeachment process unless halted by the courts or pause pending legal outcomes.
