1 September 2026
To download a soundbite of Mr Gana’s remarks, click on this link: https://iono.fm/e/1713301
Thank you very much. Good afternoon, members of the media. It is always great to see you.
Thank you also for your patience and for waiting a bit. I was concluding the meeting of the Impeachment Committee, which has taken a decision. When I was drafting my remarks this morning, I was going to report something else, but the decision is as it is right now. Thank you, and thanks to the staff for arranging this here in Parliament.
I want to focus my remarks today on three issues: firstly, the significance and mandate of the Impeachment Committee for Section 89 Enquiry. Secondly, the work that we have done thus far in the three months that we have been in existence and, finally, the way forward, particularly in light of the President’s review application, which will be heard from tomorrow in the Western Cape High Court.
1. THE SIGNIFICANCE AND MANDATE OF THE IMPEACHMENT COMMITTEE
It is important to start by recording why the Impeachment Committee for Section 89 Enquiry was formed. It was established after the Constitutional Court on 8 May this year found that Rule 129I of the National Assembly Rules was inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. It also set aside the decision of the National Assembly of 13 December 2022 not to refer the report of the Section 89 Independent Panel to an Impeachment Committee.
The Court therefore ordered that the report be referred to an Impeachment Committee established in terms of the Rules of the National Assembly, which is the mandate we are now exercising. Section 89 of the Constitution deals with one of the most serious responsibilities of Parliament, namely, the circumstances in which a President can be removed from office on grounds of a serious violation of the Constitution or the law, serious misconduct or inability to perform the functions of office.
The 8 May judgment reinforced the importance of accountability in our constitutional system and Parliament’s responsibility to fulfil its oversight role. It falls to the committee to conduct the enquiry in a fair manner, to interrogate and test the evidence, to afford the President an opportunity to respond and to report our findings to the National Assembly.
So, from the beginning, my approach as Chairperson has been that this process must satisfy two requirements at the same time: there must be accountability, but there must also be fairness and due process.
2. THE WORK DONE THUS FAR
The committee was formally constituted and I was elected as Chairperson on 1 June. The committee has therefore been working for three months now. Today is 1 September. I believe we have made significant progress with the preparatory work necessary before an enquiry of this nature can begin hearing evidence. One of the major areas of work for the committee has been setting out and finalising the terms of reference. I can now say that we are more than 80% towards concluding our terms of reference. We have a few areas that will be finalised next week. I had hoped that we would finalise them today, but there was a matter that we had to deal with. I had to allow all the members to participate fully and make sure that the decision we took had been fully considered. The terms of reference will guide how evidence is presented and tested. They will also give guidance on the role of the Evidence Leader, the participation of the President, the treatment of witnesses and the principles that will guide the committee when it eventually considers the evidence before it.
The committee has deliberately taken time to get that framework right, and we are now close to finalising the terms of reference.
My approach throughout the committee’s work has been to allow the various political parties represented on the committee to make inputs. Naturally, members come from different political parties, with different views and different political interests. That is the reality of Parliament. To me, it was, and still is, important to reach consensus wherever possible.
There may, of course, be times when I come into a meeting with a particular view, but as Chairperson, I also have to keep in mind that it is my duty to listen to the views of every member of the committee. Wherever possible, we have to try to reach consensus. If we cannot reach consensus, the committee must take a decision in accordance with its rules.
It is the same process that was used in the nomination of the Evidence Leader. Political parties and members of the committee were given an opportunity to make nominations, and we then used that process to make the recommendation of the Evidence Leader.
On 5 August, the committee resolved to recommend Advocate Thandazani Madonsela SC as the Evidence Leader. On 18 August, which was a Tuesday, we received a letter from the President objecting to our recommendation to Parliament for the appointment of Advocate Madonsela. That matter was then referred to Parliament’s Legal Services for advice in considering the issues that the President had raised.
This morning, we received a briefing from Legal Services, which gave the committee two options. One was to confirm the decision that we took on 5 August, and the other was to rescind that decision. By a majority vote, just before I came to this press briefing, members of the committee decided to rescind the recommendation of Advocate Madonsela as the Evidence Leader. That is the decision that was taken today. We have now given the political parties until Friday to make further nominations. We are therefore reopening the Evidence Leader process. We have also asked Legal Services to reconfirm, or check with the counsel and senior counsel who were nominated, whether they are still available to do this important work.
For me, the principle of due process is something that I believe has to guide our work and has been guiding our work in the committee from the beginning. If we do not adhere carefully to the Constitution, the Rules and the law, we expose the process to further legal challenges. It is therefore better to deal properly with a matter when it arises than to rush a decision and create difficulties later.
Legal challenges were, in any event, something I anticipated when I accepted this responsibility. The President had written to the Speaker before and asked that the parliamentary process be suspended until his review application was decided upon. He then approached the Western Cape High Court for an interdict. I was therefore not surprised that there were legal challenges along the way. That was something we expected.
It is now common cause that the Western Cape High Court granted an interim interdict prohibiting the committee from going ahead with the public impeachment hearings, pending the determination of the President’s review. The committee later sought to challenge that order, and the Constitutional Court declined to hear a direct application for leave to appeal.
It is important to note that none of this derailed the preparatory work that we needed to undertake. The interdict concerned the public hearings, and the committee has continued with the preparatory work allowed for by the judgment.
We have always known that working to develop the terms of reference, addressing the Evidence Leader process and the procedural and legal questions before us would take time. So, although the public hearings could not begin, we have used this time to prepare the work of the committee.
3. THE WAY FORWARD
We now come to an important point in the process, as the Western Cape High Court is set to hear the President’s substantive application to review and set aside the Independent Panel report this week. The hearing starts tomorrow.
My position is that the committee needs to be prepared to deal with whatever decision the Court makes on this review application. We cannot make assumptions about what the Court will decide, and as Chairperson I am simply not going to discuss the issues in relation to the President’s review application in the media. That should be a matter for the Court.
Our focus is to ensure that, when there is legal certainty, the committee is ready to proceed. That is why finalising the terms of reference and the Evidence Leader process is very important. Once the Evidence Leader has been appointed, the next stage will include considering the witnesses and the evidence.
If the President’s review application is unsuccessful and there is no other operative court order stopping us from doing our work, we need to be prepared to get on with the enquiry.
If the Court reaches a different conclusion, we will study the judgment carefully as a committee and obtain the necessary legal advice. We will then proceed in accordance with the order that the Court makes. The committee will not pre-empt the decision of the Court, but neither should we find ourselves unprepared once it delivers its ruling.
That is why the preparatory work of the past three months has been so important. Our aim has been to put in place a process that is transparent, legally sound and fair. The focus was on ensuring that the process can withstand scrutiny and one which both Parliament and the public can have confidence in. This is an important constitutional responsibility, which we will approach carefully, within the confines of the law.
Before I conclude, allow me to acknowledge our support staff, who are always available to assist and who have been available after hours and over weekends to make sure that we are able to do this work within the available time. There has also been support from the Office of the Speaker, the House Chairperson for Committees and other staff outside those assigned to the committee, who are always available to support and offer guidance. Without our team’s support, the work would have been much more difficult. That support has allowed and enabled me, as Chairperson, to carry out this responsibility to the best of my ability.
I also want to thank the staff and support of my political party, RISE Mzansi, for continuing to support me. Thank you.
End//
Arrange a tour