President Cyril Ramaphosa has formally objected to the appointment of advocate Thandazani Madonsela as the Chief Evidence Leader for the upcoming parliamentary impeachment inquiry, claiming conflicts of interest.

The objection has forced the Section 89 Impeachment Committee to halt proceedings and seek urgent independent legal opinion.

Ramaphosa argued that Madonsela has “clear conflicts of interest”. And in his submissions, the President pointed out that he removed Madonsela from the Judicial Service Commission in 2022. This history creates a risk of a personal grievance, Ramaphosa argued.

He also said that the ANC noted that Madonsela previously advised the party on matters tied to this exact impeachment inquiry.

Ramaphosa made the submissions under rule 167, which allows interested persons to submit concerns to the National Assembly and its committees, section 54, which gives the President the right to speak in the assembly and section 41(1)(h), which requires State organs to share information and try to avoid legal battles.

ANC secretary general Fikile Mbalula explained that party representatives abstained from voting on advocate Madonsela.

The party is concerned that a legal expert who advised a client on a case should not act in a neutral or decision-making role on that same matter later.

The President believes this appointment breaks core conflict-of-interest rules and should not go forward.

“I am not aware of the nature or extent of the information disclosed to Adv. Madonsela SC, nor of the nature or extent of the legal advice he provided. I understand, however, that the ANC has addressed a letter to the Honourable Speaker of the National Assembly raising concerns regarding Adv. Madonsela SC's recommendation based on the legal advice which he previously provided.

“Ordinarily, a legal practitioner ought not to act in a matter that is substantially the same as one in which he or she previously advised a former client who is involved in that matter, particularly where confidential or privileged information may have been disclosed,” said Ramaphosa.

He noted that a person should not assume a decision-making or quasi-adjudicative role in proceedings concerning a matter in which they previously acted for, or advised, a party who is to be directly or indirectly affected by those proceedings.

Following a heated debate and a subsequent vote, the committee resolved to refer Ramaphosa’s objection to Parliament's Legal Services Office to assess their available options.

Committee chairperson Makashule Gana confirmed that the committee will also use this pause to finalise its framework.

Members have until Wednesday to submit written feedback on the draft terms of reference.

The committee will officially reconvene on September 1 to review these submissions and chart the path forward based on the incoming legal opinion.