The election of Rise Mzansi MP Makashule Gana as chairperson of the Section 89 Enquiry’s impeachment committee has set off a wave of commentary across Parliament, with parties split between cautious optimism and outright scepticism. The 31‑member panel convened on Monday, conducted a full voting round and emerged with Gana securing 19 votes against United Africans Transformation (UAT) president Dr Wonderboy Mahlatsi’s 12. While the numbers signal a clear win, the political temperature surrounding the appointment suggests the battle over accountability will continue well beyond the chamber’s doors.
The vote unfolded in a tightly packed session, with members from Action SA, the United Democratic Movement (UDM), the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the MK Party lining up against Gana. Their opposition was not merely about numbers; it reflected deeper concerns over whether the new chair can truly operate without partisan pressure, especially given his party’s close ties to the ruling African National Congress (ANC).
Action SA’s Lerato Ngobeni was vocal in her disappointment, stating that the outcome represented “the second worst possible outcome” because “the ANC wanted this chairperson at all costs.” She argued that the opposition had put forward a candidate they believed would be impartial, and that the real test now lies in how Gana conducts the enquiry. MK Party’s John Hlophe, the parliamentary leader, echoed the sentiment, branding the result a “win for the ANC” and underscoring the need for an independent figure to steer the process.
Both Ngobeni and Hlophe stressed that the broader goal—holding President Cyril Ramaphosa to account—must not be derailed by the choice of chair. “We want to make sure that all who want to hold the president to account actually get to do so, irrespective of the outcome of this particular process,” Ngobeni said, urging transparency above partisan victories.
Section 89 Enquiry: voting results and party positions
| Party / Representative | Vote for Gana | Vote for Mahlatsi |
|---|---|---|
| Action SA (Lerato Ngobeni) | ❌ | ✅ |
| United Democratic Movement (UDM) | ❌ | ✅ |
| Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) | ❌ | ✅ |
| MK Party (John Hlophe) | ❌ | ✅ |
| Other members (incl. ANC‑aligned) | ✅ | ❌ |
The table shows a clear partisan divide: four opposition parties voted against Gana, while the remainder, many aligned with the ANC, backed him. The split underscores the challenge the committee will face in projecting impartiality.
The outcome has already sparked calls for stricter oversight. Critics argue that Gana’s affiliation with Rise Mzansi—a party described by several MPs as an ANC project—could compromise the enquiry’s credibility. John Hlophe warned that the ANC’s past attempts to “protect and cushion” the president must not be repeated, urging a chair who can resist partisan pulls.
Supporters, however, argue that Gana’s experience in Parliament equips him to navigate the complex legal and political terrain of a Section 89 investigation. They point to his track record of participating in legislative debates and engaging with cross‑party initiatives as evidence of his readiness to manage the committee’s workload.
The stakes are high. Section 89 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to initiate an impeachment process if the president is found guilty of a serious violation of the Constitution or the law. The chairperson’s role is pivotal: they set agendas, manage hearings, and ensure that findings are presented impartially to the National Assembly. Any perception of bias could jeopardise the legitimacy of the entire procedure.
Opposition leaders have urged that the committee focus on transparency and due process from the outset. Ngobeni stressed that the “jury is out” on Gana’s conduct, calling for robust mechanisms to monitor his decisions. Meanwhile, Hlophe appealed to the broader parliamentary community, saying, “We are where we are today because of the mess created by the ANC attempting to shield the president. We don’t want a repetition of what has happened before.”
In response, ANC spokespersons have defended the appointment, emphasizing Gana’s commitment to constitutional principles and his ability to work across party lines. They argue that the vote reflects a majority confidence in his capacity to lead the enquiry responsibly.
As the committee prepares to commence its work, the focus is shifting from the election drama to the substantive issues that will be examined. Allegations of misconduct, financial improprieties and breaches of constitutional duty are expected to dominate the agenda. The chair’s handling of witness testimonies, evidence collection and public communication will be under intense scrutiny, particularly from the opposition parties that see this as a litmus test for parliamentary independence.
The broader political context cannot be ignored. South Africa is grappling with a series of challenges—economic strain, energy shortages and public disillusionment with governance—that amplify the need for clear, accountable leadership. An impeachment enquiry that is perceived as fair and thorough could either restore some public confidence or, if mishandled, deepen cynicism towards the political class.
Stakeholders across civil society have also weighed in, urging the committee to adopt open‑door policies, publish interim reports and engage with watchdog organisations. Such measures could mitigate fears of a “closed‑shop” process and reinforce the legitimacy of any eventual findings.
In the coming weeks, the Section 89 committee will set its timetable, decide on the scope of investigations and appoint sub‑committees to handle specific allegations. Whether Makashule Gana will rise to the occasion and prove his independence remains the central question on every MP’s mind. The political theatre that framed his election may soon give way to substantive deliberation—if the chamber can muster the collective will to let the process run its course, free from partisan shadow.