The EFF has filed an urgent application at the Western Cape High Court, seeking to review and set aside Parliament's decision to rescind the appointment of Advocate Thandazani Madonsela as chief evidence leader of the Section 89 Impeachment Committee in the Phala Phala matter.

The party contends that the Committee's sudden reversal represents a “dangerous capitulation” to executive overreach.

According to the EFF, the legal challenge is vital to "safeguard the independence of Parliament from executive control" and to fortify the legislature's constitutional mandate to hold the executive accountable without fear or favour.

The EFF officially nominated Madonsela for the role on July 22.

Following the nomination, parliamentary officials questioned Madonsela regarding potential conflicts of interest, specifically whether any past dealings with President Cyril Ramaphosa would cloud his judgment.

On July 27, Madonsela replied to Parliament, affirming that he had no conflicts of interest. However, he highlighted two specific interactions with the President and the ruling party.

Madonsela highlighted his previous appointment by Ramaphosa to the Judicial Service Commission, from which he was later removed during a reconfiguration of the body.

He also noted his instruction by a firm of attorneys to assist a junior advocate in drafting a legal opinion for the ANC parliamentary study group.

This opinion outlined how Parliament should respond to litigation following the Constitutional Court's mandate to establish an Impeachment Committee.

The EFF stressed that when the Impeachment Committee met last month, it possessed all this information. After evaluating these facts, the committee concluded that no conflict of interest existed and formally resolved to recommend Madonsela for the role.

The EFF alleged that the committee's subsequent reversal was triggered by direct interference from both the ruling party and the Presidency.

The party noted that ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula sent a letter to National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, flagging Madonsela’s prior legal work for the ANC.

Concurrently, Ramaphosa wrote to Parliament objecting to the appointment, citing the exact two grounds Madonsela had already disclosed - his past JSC membership and the ANC study group briefing.

The EFF has criticised these objections, labelling them "frivolous" and legally flawed.

"The reasons proffered by Ramaphosa are frivolous and should have never been entertained by the committee," the EFF stated. "They are also not new, as the Committee had full disclosure made to it by Madonsela, and still resolved to appoint him."

In its court papers, the EFF argued that the executive's intervention was executed in bad faith, aimed at delaying and frustrating the work of the Impeachment Committee.

Furthermore, the party maintained that the committee's decision to rescind the appointment is fundamentally irrational.

The EFF pointed out a critical misunderstanding of the role: evidence leaders do not function as judges and hold no decision-making power within the inquiry.

The Impeachment Committee itself remained the sole arbiter and decision-maker.

By bowing to external pressure, the EFF warned that Parliament has compromised its integrity, a development that "should concern all Constitution-loving and law-abiding citizens in this country."

The party highlighted that the work Madonsela might have done for the study group cannot constitute conflict of interest because the ANC is not party to any of the litigation taking place surrounding Ramaphosa and Phala Phala.

“… Ramaphosa's averment that Madonsela's role and removal from the JSC might have caused Madonsela to resent Ramaphosa is without merit and irrational,” the EFF explained.