CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — The Ramaphosa Impeachment Committee is set to consider a crucial legal opinion regarding its authority to compel President Cyril Ramaphosa to testify before the panel. This pivotal review of the committee’s powers comes as lawmakers finalize the draft Terms of Reference that will guide the substantive work of the Section 89 inquiry into the President.
The push to clarify the committee’s summoning powers follows early suggestions in the draft terms of reference that President Ramaphosa’s testimony could potentially be submitted through a legal representative. Opposition parties within the committee have strongly pushed back against this notion, arguing that an adverse finding or inference could be drawn against the President if he refuses to appear in person to answer for the allegations.
Addressing the legal framework, MK Party parliamentary leader John Hlophe previously emphasized that the committee cannot rewrite the law, noting that if there is a case to answer and the President chooses not to give evidence, the existing evidence will stand against him. MK Party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela has similarly echoed the opposition’s stance that the head of state must face the panel directly. Reinforcing the procedural standpoint, Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo confirmed that the committee is continuing its preparatory work while awaiting finality on a Western Cape High Court review application that temporarily paused the inquiry’s substantive phases.
The constitutional backing for compelling testimony is robust. Section 56 of the Constitution, read together with Section 14 of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities Act (PPIA), alongside National Assembly Rules 167 and 360, all empower parliamentary committees to summon witnesses. However, parliamentary tradition typically allows a witness to appear voluntarily before formal summoning powers are invoked, a precedent the committee is carefully weighing.
In addition to the terms of reference, the committee is advancing the process of appointing an evidence leader to guide the inquiry and extract testimony from potential witnesses. Advocate Griffiths Madonsela has emerged as a primary candidate, receiving joint nominations from the MK Party, the UAT, and the EFF. Because the committee itself does not hold the direct power to appoint the evidence leader, it will deliberate on a preferred candidate and forward the recommendation to the Secretary to Parliament, who acts as the accounting officer for the national legislature.
These internal deliberations are unfolding alongside significant external legal deadlines. Today also marks the deadline for parties to file opposing papers in an urgent direct appeal to the Constitutional Court. This appeal was launched by the African Transformation Movement (ATM) and its parliamentary leader, Vuyo Zungula, challenging the Western Cape High Court’s initial interdict. ATM spokesperson Zama Ntshona indicated that the party is actively seeking clarity on the implementation and effects of the High Court’s order to ensure the impeachment process remains constitutionally sound.
As these parallel legal and parliamentary tracks unfold, the Ramaphosa Impeachment Committee remains focused on establishing a watertight procedural framework. Whether the President will ultimately be compelled to take the stand in person or rely on legal representatives will soon be tested against the strict letter of South African constitutional law.