South Africa’s first-ever impeachment committee is moving cautiously but firmly, with newly appointed chairperson Makashule Gana signalling that he wants the committee to hold its next meeting before Parliament breaks for recess. Beyond that, though, he is refusing to be pined down on dates, insisting it is simply too early to map out how long the historic process will take.
Gana, who represents RISE Mzansi in the National Assembly, addressed the media alongside the party’s national leader, Songezo Zibi MP, who chairs the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA). The briefing covered the impeachment committee, the Johannesburg mayoral campaign, and the Gauteng Government of Provincial Unity, but the spotlight stayed firmly on the constitutional ground the new committee is preparing to walk.
Zibi welcomed the election of his party’s Chief Organiser and National Assembly Whip to the chair of this unprecedented body. He framed Gana’s role as one of duty rather than allegiance, making clear the chairperson answers to the Constitution and not to any party line.
“We have no doubt that Gana will place the flag and the Constitution above all else. He is not there to defend a party or the Government of National Unity (GNU) position. He is there to steer a process defined by the Constitution and the Rules of the National Assembly,” Songezo Zibi said.
Gana confirmed the committee is gearing up for its first sitting, which he intends to convene before the 26th of June, ahead of the parliamentary recess. He was blunt about what it would take to stop the process once it begins, ruling out any informal pressure or legal posturing.
“No lawyer’s letter or anything (will stop us), unless the court decides that we should stop. We are continuing. We’re not going to be slowed by anything other than that,” he said, ading that only a competent court order could halt proceedings.
On the question of impartiality, Gana said he would be guided entirely by the rules and would treat every member with respect, regardless of how they voted on his election. He pushed back at scrutiny over his appointment, saying the focus now has to be on the work ahead.
“It’s now been seven days. We don’t need to go back there. We need to look forward. There’s work that’s happening. I’m now the chairperson of the committee. What people say or don’t say, it’s not for me,” Makashule Gana said.
What the impeachment committee must settle first
Gana laid out a clear sequence of priorities, and the impeachment committee cannot rush past any of them. Top of the list is agreeing on the terms of reference, building on guidelines already handed down by the subcommittee on rules. Only once that foundation is set can the committee move to the next stage.
The appointment of evidence leaders is where Gana wants the process to be visibly transparent. He stressed that this would not happen behind closed dors, but in the open, with political parties given room to nominate candidates and have their say.
| Stage | What it involves | Status |
|—|—|
| Terms of reference | Built on subcommittee guidelines, plus terms of engagement | To be agreed at second meeting |
| Evidence leaders | Public appointment, parties may nominate | Process still to be set |
| Witnesses | Identifying and agreeing how to engage them | Pending |
| Document analysis | Fair review of evidence before the committee | Pending |
| Timelines | Dependent on all stages above | Cannot yet be given |
The takeaway is straightforward: Gana sees realistic timelines as impossible to offer until the building blocks — terms of reference, evidence leaders, witneses and documents — are all in place. Anything sooner, he says, would be guesswork.
“To give timelines at the moment, it will be wishful thinking on my side. So let’s allow the committee to have its second meeting, where we’ll deal with the terms of reference, and where we’ll deal with the process of appointing the evidence leaders, because it needs to be as inclusive as possible,” Gana said.
A separate cloud hangs over the committee’s makeup. The eligibility of uMkhonto weSizwe Party’s Dr John Hlophe to serve has been refered for a legal opinion, a matter Gana was careful to place outside his own hands.
He explained that the subcommittee on rules examined the issue and pushed it up to the Speaker for guidance. The legal opinion, once received, will direct both Parliament and the committee on whether Hlophe can take his seat.
“It’s not up to the chairperson of the committee to decide who sits or does not sit in the committee. We’ll be guided by the legal opinion,” he said, pointing to the earlier court case over Hlophe’s role on the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) as the backdrop to the current concern.
For now, the message from Gana is one of patience paired with resolve. The committee is stering uncharted constitutional waters, and he is determined to get the process right rather than fast — a stance that will shape one of the most closely watched parliamentary exercises in South Africa’s democratic history.