National Assembly adopts rules to guide Ramaphosa impeachment committee

On 23 June 2026 the National Assembly approved amended rules to guide a 31-member impeachment committee that will investigate President Cyril Ramaphosa over allegations relating to the 2020 theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala game farm. Parliament adopted the changes despite an ongoing court challenge by the president seeking to halt the process.

What the new rules do

The amended rules set the framework for the committee to begin its work under Section 89 of the Constitution. Section 89 allows for impeachment where there is a serious violation of the Constitution or law, serious misconduct, or inability to perform the functions of office. The Constitutional Court earlier struck down Rule 129I, which previously allowed MPs to reject impeachment recommendations, and its judgment cleared the way for the inquiry to proceed.

Parliament moves while legal challenge continues

President Ramaphosa has sought a court review to halt the impeachment process and to challenge the independent Section 89 panel report. Parliament nonetheless proceeded to adopt the amended rules so the committee could commence its work. The committee is required to investigate thoroughly before any impeachment vote, and no specific timelines for the inquiry were set in the rules adopted by the Assembly.

Debate and reaction across parties

The decision prompted heated debate in the National Assembly, with parties and individual MPs voicing competing views about procedure, standards for committee members and parliamentary authority.

Rules committee and procedure

ANC rules subcommittee chairperson Doris Mpapane reflected on the difficulty of amending standing orders, saying:

“Amending parliament’s rules can be a challenging task because all political parties have their own interests and views. It is therefore important that the Rules Committee carefully consider the details of any amendments to ensure they can be commonly understood and applied.”

Opposition and criticism

The MK party’s Mzwanele Manyi criticised the committee’s pace and activity, saying:

“The Impeachment Committee has still commenced implementation of the Constitutional Court order. It has only met to elect a chairperson and to consider its constitution at the misguided interject application. It has a planned meeting still pending to discuss the appointment of the evidence leader. Two meetings, none of them, none of them an inquiry, there is no sense of urgency.”

Impeachment Committee chairperson Makashule Gana responded to that criticism, saying he would not be drawn into the exchange and asserting that the committee’s work was continuing:

“I will resist the temptation to respond to what Honourable Manyi said. I think he’s yearning to be part of the committee. I can talk to the leader of the opposition if he wants to be in the committee. Those that are in the committee knows the way that’s happening, so we’ll not respond to other than what’s being said today. So, the work is continuing, chairperson, the work of the committee is continuing.”

Standards for committee members

Debate also focused on proposals to require impeachment committee members to meet a “fit and proper” standard. The EFF’s Hlengiwe Mkhaliphi rejected a DA proposal to add such a requirement, saying the DA could not define the standard. The IFP’s Nhlanhla Hadebe cautioned against applying the standard only to impeachment committee members. The DA’s Glynnis Breytenbach defended the proposal, saying:

“The Democratic Alliance’s proposal on the inclusion of a fit and proper requirement for members to serve on an impeachment committee was rejected. An impeachment investigation is a serious matter, and therefore requires equally serious consideration on who to participate in it. This consideration necessitates a higher standard for members who serve on the committee, as we are entrusted by the citizens of South Africa to serve them with integrity and uncompromised ethical principles.”

Concerns about parliamentary duty

Other opposition voices warned against placing party loyalty ahead of constitutional duty. ActionSA chief whip Lerato Ngobeni said:

“South Africans have seen what happens when Parliament places political convenience ahead of constitutional duty. Too often, accountability has been delayed, diluted, or frustrated when it mattered most. The lessons of Nkandla remain impossible to ignore. The fact that the constitutional court had to remind Parliament of its constitutional obligations should remain a source of embarrassment for this institution.”

Bosa’s Nobuntu-Hlazo Webster said strengthening the Section 89 process was necessary so that accountability does not depend on who occupies the Union Buildings or which party commands a majority:

“That has damaged public trust in this institution. As Bosa, we therefore support strengthening the section 89 process because accountability should never depend on who occupies the Union Buildings or which party commands a majority in the house. We have long argued that parliament must never become a shield for the executive and that it must remain the independent guardian of the constitution.”

ATM leader Vuyo Zungula commented on presidential accountability, saying:

“When a president instructs, authorises, or directs conduct that amounts to a serious violation of the constitutional law, the responsibility still remains with the president.”

Next steps

The impeachment committee was expected to meet on Wednesday to outline its terms of reference and deal with the appointment of evidence leaders. The committee was established after the Constitutional Court’s 8 May judgment set aside the National Assembly’s 2022 decision not to proceed with impeachment and referred the independent panel’s report to an Impeachment Committee for consideration.

Legal challenge continues

President Ramaphosa is seeking a judicial review and has approached the Western Cape High Court for an urgent interdict to prevent the start of an impeachment inquiry while he challenges the Section 89 independent panel report and its recommendations. Parliament proceeded with rule changes while that legal challenge remains pending.