The EFF has launched an urgent legal challenge against parliament’s decision to rescind its recommendation of advocate Griffiths Madonsela as chief evidence leader for the section 89 impeachment process, involving President Cyril Ramaphosa.On Monday, the EFF filed an application in the Western Cape High Court asking the court also to set aside any subsequent decision by the committee to appoint or recommend anyone other than Madonsela as chief evidence leader.The matter has been enrolled for hearing on September 18.The legal challenge follows a dispute over Madonsela’s suitability for the role after Ramaphosa objected to his appointment.According to EFF leader Julius Malema’s founding affidavit, the party submitted Madonsela’s name for consideration as chief evidence leader on July 22. The section 89 committee subsequently contacted Madonsela to establish his availability and whether he met the requirements for the position.Madonsela confirmed that he had no conflict of interest. He also disclosed that he had previously been designated to the Judicial Service Commission and had undertaken work for the ANC, but indicated that the work was limited.On August 5, the section 89 committee resolved to recommend Madonsela as chief evidence leader, which the EFF says was confirmed in writing.Objection to recommendationThe dispute, however, escalated after ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula wrote to National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza, saying that Madonsela had been briefed by the ANC to advise on constitutional and parliamentary rules governing section 89 proceedingsThe letter, according to Malema’s affidavit, was as a declaration rather than an objection and stated that the ANC did not recognise the committee’s vote on Madonsela’s appointment.Ramaphosa subsequently wrote to the section 89 committee on August 18, objecting to the decision to recommend Madonsela.According to the Malema’s affidavit, Ramaphosa raised two concerns. The first was that Madonsela had previously advised the ANC on a matter relating to the section 89 committee’s proceedings. The second was that Ramaphosa had not renewed Madonsela‘s nomination as a candidate to the JSC.Ramaphosa argued that these circumstances created a reasonable apprehension that Madonsela could harbour a sense of grievance towards him and might act on it.‘Irrational’ decisionThe committee invited Madonsela to respond to Ramaphosa’s allegations. He did so on August 20 and the committee rescinded its recommendation on September 1.The EFF argues that the committee’s decision was irrational and unlawful and amounted to bad faith and an abuse of process by the ANC and Ramaphosa. Malema argues that the facts relied on to raise the alleged conflict of interest were already known to the ANC and Ramaphosa before Madonsela was nominated and recommended. He said the EFF therefore questioned why the issue was only raised after the committee had already resolved to recommend him.The party argues that Madonsela’s role as chief evidence leader does not involve making decisions on the impeachment process. Instead, the EFF says, the evidence leader would act as a prosecutor and assist with the investigative process.The affidavit also rejects the argument that Madonsela’s previous designation to the JSC creates a conflict of interest. Malema argues that such a conflict would arise routinely whenever a JSC member was involved in the designation of another person to the commission.The EFF says there is also no evidence that Madonsela would harbour resentment towards Ramaphosa. A central part of the EFF’s case is that the committee had no new facts justifying the reversal of its earlier decision.Malema argues that the only new development between the committee’s initial recommendation and its decision to rescind it was Ramaphosa’s objection, which was based on information that had already been available to the committee.The EFF contends that the committee therefore acted irrationally by changing its position without a proper basis. The party is also challenging the legal basis for the rescission, arguing that there is no provision allowing the section 89 committee to arbitrarily reverse its decision.The EFF says the urgency of the application arises because the chief evidence leader and evidence leaders’ team need to be appointed before substantive work on the impeachment investigation can begin. That work includes appointing the evidence leaders’ team, preparing witness lists, summoning witnesses and documents, considering the impeachment panel’s report and preparing for the investigative process.The EFF says further delays could disrupt the impeachment process, particularly as the committee has been temporarily prevented from holding public hearings pending the outcome of separate litigation brought by Ramaphosa.Malema argues that a judgment in that matter could trigger the start of public hearings and that the section 89 process should therefore have its evidence leaders appointed beforehand.The respondents have been given until Monday to give notice of opposition, with answering affidavits due by September 9 and heads of argument due by September 16. The EFF’s replying affidavit is due on September 10.Business Day