Parliament’s Rules Committee has convened to process amendments to the National Assembly’s rules following the Constitutional Court’s judgment on the Phala Phala matter. The landmark ruling invalidated regulations that prevented investigations into a sitting head of state at a preliminary stage, even after an independent panel found President Cyril Ramaphosa may have a case to answer.
During Wednesday’s session, the committee reviewed amendments previously drafted by the subcommittee on rules. A key point of contention centered on Rule 129A, sub-rule 1(c), which stipulates that charges against the head of state must relate to actions or conduct performed personally. Several members warned this wording could create a loophole, allowing a president to evade accountability if misconduct was carried out through subordinates or intermediaries.
In response, the MK party submitted that the rule should explicitly recognize conduct attributable to the president “whether committed directly or through persons acting under the president’s authority, instruction, knowledge, or for the president’s benefit.”
The committee also examined whether the phrase “fit and proper” could be incorporated into the rules to determine eligibility for serving on an impeachment committee. Parliamentary legal advisors confirmed that the Assembly is constitutionally empowered under Section 57 to regulate committee composition and may introduce such a requirement. However, they cautioned that doing so would limit political rights protected by Section 19 of the Constitution. Legal teams advised that if the “fit and proper” standard is included, it must be rational, clearly defined, and justifiable under Section 36 of the Constitution.
Some parliamentary legal experts further proposed amending Section 47 of the Constitution to apply the “fit and proper” criterion generally, rather than on a case-by-case basis. This suggestion faced resistance, with members noting that constitutional amendments are time-intensive and could inadvertently exclude eligible representatives from serving in the National Assembly—a result they argued would undermine democratic representation.
Debate also arose over the legal weight of an impeachment committee’s output. Current draft rules state that while the committee’s findings may be binding, its recommendations remain subject to a National Assembly vote. Some members contended this arrangement violates the Constitution, but others strongly disagreed. One spokesperson emphasized that Section 89(1) clearly requires the Assembly to vote on removal, with support from at least two-thirds of members. “The impeachment is now a de facto fact. The president is placed in a state of accusation… but the Constitution says the Assembly must vote upon it,” the spokesperson stated, adding that rules cannot contravene this democratic process.
Additionally, several members called for evidence leaders overseeing impeachment proceedings to be appointed directly by the impeachment committee itself, rather than through external processes.
The Rules Committee continues its deliberations as Parliament seeks to align its procedural framework with the Constitutional Court’s directives while safeguarding constitutional principles and accountability mechanisms.
