A battle over Parliament’s impeachment rules has exposed fears that procedure may be used to contain the revived Phala Phala inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa before the committee begins its substantive work.
The fears emerged during a meeting of the National Assembly subcommittee on the review of Assembly rules on Thursday, where MPs considered amendments flowing from the Constitutional Court judgment that revived the section 89 impeachment process.
The meeting dealt with two documents. The first was a seven-page set of proposed amendments to the existing presidential impeachment rules. The second was a 39-page document containing detailed rules for section 89 inquiries.
Although the amendments were presented as an attempt to align Parliament’s rules with the Constitutional Court judgment, the debate quickly turned to whether the National Assembly was creating new procedural tools that could limit the impeachment committee’s control over its inquiry.
‘New procedural tools’ sow discontent
The most contested proposal was paragraph 21, which sought to insert a new subrule stating that the Assembly “may adopt detailed rules for section 89 inquiries generally or for a particular section 89 inquiry”.
Several MPs questioned whether the proposal would allow the Assembly to intervene in the work of an impeachment committee after it had already been established.
MK Party MP Mzwanele Manyi questioned why Parliament would need to retain such powers once an impeachment committee had been appointed.
EFF MP Sam Matiase warned that the proposal could undermine the authority of the committee conducting the inquiry.
ANC MP Mikateko Mahlaule defended the proposal, arguing that Parliament was entitled to regulate its own processes and committees.
Strengthening oversight or interference?
Subcommittee chairperson Dorris Mpapane repeatedly sought clarity on whether the proposed rule would strengthen Parliament’s oversight role or amount to interference in the work of an impeachment committee.
At the heart of the dispute was whether the Assembly could impose procedural requirements on a committee once it had already been tasked with conducting an impeachment inquiry.
Secretary to the National Assembly Masibulele Xaso told MPs that the detailed rules under discussion would not automatically become binding on an impeachment committee.
“It is not the rules of the impeachment committee,” Xaso said. “If they want to reject it, they must reject it.”
His explanation appeared aimed at reassuring MPs that the Assembly would not be dictating how an impeachment committee should conduct its work.
Call for higher standard of ethics
The debate also exposed a dispute over whether MPs serving on an impeachment committee should be required to meet a higher ethical threshold than ordinary members of Parliament.
DA MP George Michalakis proposed inserting the words “fit and proper” before “Assembly members”.
“I do think that this is not just an ordinary portfolio committee,” Michalakis said. “This specific committee requires a higher standard of ethics.”
Matiase objected to the proposal.
“Let’s not be opportunistic with what we want to smuggle in here,” he said.
He argued that MPs had already been sworn in by the Chief Justice and enjoyed the same rights and standing as every other member of the National Assembly.
Charges and recommendations
MPs also debated Rule 129P, which provides that the Assembly is bound by the independent panel’s conclusion and the impeachment committee’s findings on the charges, but not by the committee’s recommendation on whether a president should be removed from office.
“When it gets to the most critical part, the recommendations, this reading says the Assembly is not bound,” Matiase said.
Adv Andrew Breitenbach SC disagreed that the provision created a contradiction.
“The subject matter is different,” he said.
Breitenbach argued that findings on the charges and recommendations on sanctions dealt with different issues and therefore carried different legal consequences.
The exchanges highlighted continuing tensions between Parliament’s constitutional authority and the independence of committees established to carry out quasi-judicial functions.
The Constitutional Court previously found shortcomings in Parliament’s handling of the Phala Phala matter and ordered the National Assembly to reconsider the section 89 process in accordance with constitutional requirements.
The revived process could ultimately place renewed scrutiny on Ramaphosa over allegations linked to the theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala farm.
‘Fit and proper’ requirement not adopted
After several hours of debate, the subcommittee adopted the amendments with paragraph 21 removed from the proposed rules.
The proposed “fit and proper” requirement for impeachment committee members was not adopted and was instead referred for legal opinion.
The outcome preserves the existing framework for Parliament’s revived impeachment process while leaving unresolved questions about the qualifications required of MPs who may ultimately sit in judgment of a sitting president.
- A National Assembly subcommittee debated proposed amendments to Parliament’s impeachment rules following a Constitutional Court judgment reviving the section 89 process connected to the Phala Phala inquiry into President Cyril Ramaphosa.
- Contentious proposals included clause 21, which would allow the Assembly to adopt detailed procedural rules for impeachment inquiries, raising concerns it could limit committee autonomy and interfere with ongoing investigations.
- MPs also debated whether impeachment committee members should meet a higher ethical standard, with a proposed "fit and proper" requirement ultimately referred for further legal opinion rather than adopted.
- Disagreements surfaced over whether the Assembly is bound by a committee’s findings and sanctions recommendations, highlighting tensions between parliamentary authority and committee independence in quasi-judicial functions.
- After extensive debate, the subcommittee removed clause 21 and maintained the current impeachment framework, leaving unresolved questions on procedural interference and the ethical qualifications for MPs judging a sitting president.
