With legal advice requested on whether President Cyril Ramaphosa could be compelled to testify, Parliament’s impeachment committee chairperson, Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana, asked political parties “to confer with each other” on the terms of reference to reach consensus “and submit the agreed positions” before next week’s meeting.

By then, the Western Cape high court would have ruled on Ramaphosa’s interdict application for a stay in impeachment proceedings. He wants to pause the parliamentary committee until the finalisation of his bid to set aside the Section 89 report that found he had a case to answer on the forex theft from sofa cushions at his private Phala Phala game farm. The interdict judgment is expected on Friday.

Meanwhile, in Parliament, the impeachment draft terms of reference state the President may testify, and seem to leave open the door that if he were to testify, he could choose for his testimony to be delivered by a representative. As it stands now, no adverse inference could be drawn should the President decline to testify in person.

The MK party, EFF, ActionSA, African Transformation Movement (ATM) and others argued that the President had to testify in person.

“You can’t have an inquiry about the President and not have him testify. That’s central to holding him accountable,” said ATM leader Vuyolwethu Zungula, who in mid-2022 brought the impeachment motion after former spy boss Arthur Fraser laid criminal charges over the until then unreported theft of $580,000 some two years earlier.

Leader of the African Transformation Movement Vuyolwethu Zungula. (Photo: Gallo Images / Jeffrey Abrahams)

MK party parliamentary leader John Hlophe said the President had to give evidence, and could not testify through an intermediary. If the President chose not to testify, it would mean an adverse inference, as was the norm in the courts. “We can not rewrite the law…”

Here, Hlophe, the impeached former Western Cape High Court judge president, found support from ACDP MP and lawyer Steve Swart. Describing the impeachment proceedings as a “serious accountability exercise”, Swart said the terms of reference’s stipulation that no adverse inference could be drawn was “incorrect as a matter of law”.

EFF MP Omphile Maotwe said the party objected to the President not testifying, and “vehemently” disagreed with the possibility of the President talking through lawyers. “We will be failing the people of SA. We will be failing ourselves as people elected to hold the executive [to] account… So, he must come here.”

The DA and Freedom Front Plus remained silent in this discussion. The ANC spoke seldom, except to support Gana in seeking “legal clarity on the right to stay silent”, as ANC MP Faith Muthambi put it, and to support the 48-hour extension on decisions over the terms of reference and also the choice of evidence leaders.

Rise Mzansi’s Makashule Gana is the chairperson of the impeachment committee that will determine the President’s fate. (Photo: Phando Jikelo / RSA Parliament)

ANC MP Cameron Dugmore reiterated the party’s “strong” motivation for a two-pronged approach that he argued was directly based on the May 2026 Constitutional Court judgment, which revived the impeachment proceedings. Key are the judgment’s paragraphs 136 to 141, often cited, which cover the decision of the Public Protector, joint standing committee on intelligence, SA Reserve Bank and South African Revenue Service (SARS) that Ramaphosa had not contravened laws.

Plan to protect Ramaphosa

The ANC’s two-pronged approach effectively meant the impeachment committee would re-canvass those findings, and determinations by others such as the prosecution services that charged a Phala Phala farm worker, her brother and another person, before deciding on whether to embark on a full-scale inquiry.

It is part of the ANC’s planning to protect Ramaphosa. This also emerges from submissions on the draft terms of reference, with suggestions such as that the evidence leader should not “act as a prosecutor” and limiting this role to “presenting the evidence and putting questions to the President and other witnesses”.

“How the President interacts with his representative should be left to the President,” read the ANC’s submissions.

Members of the MK party protest outside the Western Cape Division of the High Court in Cape Town during the urgent interdict hearing on Phala Phala on 15 July 2026. (Photo: Gallo Images / ER Lombard)

Patriotic Alliance MP Marlon Daniels came out in support of the ANC, saying the President could not be compelled to testify as there was a right to be heard, but no duty, and no adverse conclusions could be drawn if he chose not to testify.

While the impeachment committee has vowed to continue with its proceedings until a competent court has ruled otherwise, it would seem much of its actual work is unfolding away from public eyes.

Gana, on several occasions, urged lawmakers to confer, pursue “internal lobbying” and to reach agreement and consensus. What unfolds in the public and televised committee meetings then is the sanitised outcome of such behind-the-scenes political decision-making.

GNU vs the opposition

As the terms of reference finalisation was delayed to next week, so was the selection of the evidence leader. Already nominated are former Zondo State Capture Commission evidence leaders, advocates Pule Seleka and Kate Hofmeyr, alongside advocate Vuyani Ngalwana and advocate Ismail Jamie.

It was unclear on Wednesday whether advocate Zinzile Matebese, who is available only from November, while the committee wants to start in August, remained in play. Political parties have until 6pm Friday to submit further names, and until next week to reach agreement before the next meeting on 29 July.

It remains to be seen if the political gap between the GNU coalition partners and others can be overcome. If it comes down to voting on the committee, the numbers favour the coalition; it could expect to gather 18 votes if full complements of the nine ANC MPs, five DA MPs and all single MPs of the IFP, PA, FF+, Al Jama-ah are in attendance.

Wednesday’s more than three hours of discussions, essentially to decide to delay decisions to next week, left those on the other side of the House exasperated. Or as MK party MP Khanyisile Litchfield-Tshabalala put it:

“GNU, don’t push us into a corner where there are some of us in opposition having to… say, ‘Do we really have to be part of this impeachment committee or do we just leave it as a GNU process?’ You can’t waste our time…” DM