Impeachment committee moves to appoint evidence leader as clashes over Speaker escalate

Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee has moved to begin appointing an evidence leader to steer the inquiry into the theft of foreign currency at President Cyril Ramaphosa’s farm, setting a formal deadline for parties to nominate candidates while committee members traded sharp criticism over Speaker Thoko Didiza’s reaction to the president’s court bid.

Appointment process and deadline

Committee chairperson Makashule Gana told members that political parties have until 10 July 2026 to nominate candidates for the evidence leader role. He said the committee will recommend a preferred candidate to Parliament for formal appointment, and that the lead evidence officer will decide whether to appoint assistant evidence leaders.

Gana said the committee agreed to allow political parties 10 working days to study the draft Terms of Reference and to make written submissions by Friday, 10 July 2026. Those submissions will form part of the draft Terms of Reference the committee will adopt to guide its work.

Draft Terms of Reference and specialist support

The committee considered a nearly 40‑page draft Terms of Reference and correspondence related to the inquiry. Gana said the panel agreed in principle that additional specialist support might be required, including investigators with expertise in forensic investigations, exchange control matters, and data analysis.

Political clashes over the Speaker

The meeting featured sharp criticism of Speaker Thoko Didiza. EFF leader Julius Malema accused the Speaker of failing in her constitutional duty to defend Parliament and its oversight processes and said she should have opposed the president’s court application.

“She acted wrongfully by not opposing. The president is challenging the panel report of Parliament. The speaker’s advice, legal advice, was the only one option, oppose, there was no two options. The Speaker couldn’t rely on the legal advice of our committee. She went to get her own legal advice. Then the legal advice told her what she didn’t want to hear. Then she says, when she does interviews, which is dishonest, the legal advice said, I also have an option to abide. Her advice doesn’t have that option. It is your advice which has got that option,” Malema said.

MK party leader Andile Mngxitama urged the committee to take a stronger stance to “persuade” the Speaker to protect the integrity of Parliament, saying the Speaker should not simply “let the process take its course” but must take a position to protect the institution.

NCC leader Fadiel Adams warned that the president’s urgent interdict in the Western Cape High Court represented an attempt to avoid the committee, saying: “We can’t leave a backdoor open for him to escape accountability.”

Rules and the pending interdict

The National Assembly recently adopted amended rules governing the impeachment committee. That move allows the committee to proceed while the president has an urgent bid pending in the Western Cape High Court to halt the inquiry until his review of the Section 89 panel report is finalised.

Ramaphosa has approached the court seeking an urgent interdict to prevent the start of the impeachment inquiry pending his review of the panel report. The president last week defended the Speaker’s decision not to oppose his application, saying she is acting independently and in accordance with the constitution by choosing not to oppose the interdict.

Editor’s note

Edits made: All references to the nomination and submission deadline were updated to include the year 2026 (changed to 10 July 2026 and Friday, 10 July 2026). The sentence specifying a committee size was removed and replaced with a neutral statement that the National Assembly adopted amended rules governing the impeachment committee. No other dates in the source lacked years; quoted text and names were left unchanged.

Remaining uncertainty: The article refers to the president defending the Speaker’s decision “last week”; the source uses this relative timing but does not give a specific date for that remark. This relative reference is retained as in the source.