The Democratic Alliance has welcomed the appointment of Makashule Gana (representative of the RISE Mzansi party) to chair Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment inquiry into the Phala Phala matter, describing the decision as a strategic move to safeguard the credibility and impartiality of the historic process.
DA spokesperson Jan de Villiers stated that the appointment represents a pivotal moment for South Africa, testing whether those holding the highest office in the land can be held accountable while still receiving a fair administrative process.
“We are looking for the truth. We want to make sure that accountability is transparent but that it is also fair,” de Villiers said.
The DA explained its decision not to support an ANC candidate for the chairperson role, arguing that it would be difficult for a representative of the ruling party to remain objective in overseeing proceedings that could implicate a president from that same party. Equally, the party said it could not support candidates from the so-called “progressive caucus”—including the EFF or MK Party—alleging that some members had already publicly prejudged the President’s guilt.
Gana, who hails from a party holding only two parliamentary seats, was ultimately backed by both the DA and ANC. De Villiers described Gana as a compromise candidate likely to be perceived as impartial, adding that the DA deliberately chose not to nominate one of its own members for the same reason it opposed an ANC nominee.
“We think Mr. Gana is the right candidate,” de Villiers said. “We are really glad that it is not a candidate from the ANC nor the MK or the EFF. We don’t feel that would have been appropriate.”
De Villiers expressed surprise that Build One South Africa (BOSA) leader Mmusi Maimane and the ACDP voted alongside the progressive caucus for an alternative candidate. While declining to speculate extensively on their motivations, he noted the outcome ultimately aligned with the DA’s preference.
The committee now turns to establishing its terms of reference and procedural rules, following a Constitutional Court directive that Parliament proceed with the inquiry.
However, potential legal challenges loom. President Cyril Ramaphosa has filed a review application seeking to set aside the Section 89 panel report that triggered the impeachment process. De Villiers affirmed the President’s right to pursue legal recourse but stressed that such applications must not obstruct Parliament’s constitutional mandate.
The DA has called on the Speaker of Parliament to provide a firm legal opinion on whether Parliament should oppose the President’s review application, and whether proceeding with the inquiry could be compromised by the pending litigation. De Villiers noted that, as of the interview, no such legal opinion had been shared with parties on the impeachment committee.
He further emphasized that any legal representation for Parliament in court should be selected collectively by the parties represented on the committee, ensuring broad consensus on counsel.
“We have to first see if that legal case is presented to the Speaker, and that should be the guiding principle here: objective legal guidance,” de Villiers said.
With Gana now at the helm, the committee is expected to begin its substantive work, navigating both procedural complexities and intense public scrutiny as South Africa confronts its first presidential impeachment inquiry under the post-apartheid Constitution.
