Section 89 Impeachment: How South Africa Removes a President

Key takeaways

• Section 89 of South Africa's Constitution allows the National Assembly to remove the President from office only for a serious violation of the Constitution or law, serious misconduct, or inability to perform the functions of office. Removal requires at least two thirds of all Assembly members to support the resolution. In a 400-member Assembly, Parliament's voting schedule records the minimum as 267 votes.
• The present National Assembly rules create a staged process. An Assembly member submits a clearly formulated, substantiated charge with supporting evidence. Once the Speaker finds the motion in order, it goes to a three-person independent panel for a preliminary written assessment. A positive panel conclusion now leads to an Impeachment Committee inquiry. That committee tests the veracity and, where necessary, seriousness of the charges, hears the President's defence and reports findings and a recommendation. The Assembly then makes the constitutional removal decision.
• A panel report is not a removal vote. An Impeachment Committee recommendation is not the removal itself. Only the National Assembly can remove the President, and only by meeting section 89's two-thirds threshold after the required factual and procedural stages.
• This guide is current to 21 July 2026. It reflects amendments to Rules 129A–129Q adopted by the Assembly on 23 June 2026 after the Constitutional Court's May 2026 judgment on the former Rule 129I. Older explainers that still describe a universal 30-day panel period or an Assembly choice to stop a positive panel report do not state the current prospective rules.

Why people call section 89 “impeachment”

The heading in the Constitution is “Removal of President”. The constitutional text does not use the word “impeachment”. Parliament's current rules nevertheless label the initiating instrument a “Presidential impeachment motion” and call the fact-finding body the Impeachment Committee. In South African public discussion, “section 89 process” and “impeachment process” therefore usually describe the same removal mechanism.

That shorthand must not import the procedure of another country. South Africa's process comes from:

• section 89 of the Constitution;
• the National Assembly's rule-making power;
• current Rules 129A to 129Q;
• general rules governing committees and Assembly decisions; and
• Constitutional Court judgments on accountability, factual findings and the proper sequence.

The constitutional-law glossary provides the wider legal setting, while the supremacy-of-the-Constitution glossary explains why parliamentary rules and decisions remain subject to the Constitution.

The three constitutional grounds

Section 89(1) permits removal only on one or more of three grounds.

Serious violation of the Constitution or the law

This ground requires more than identifying a technical breach. The violation must be serious. The charge should identify the constitutional or legal obligation, the President's personal action or instruction, the evidence and why the alleged breach reaches constitutional seriousness.

Serious misconduct

Misconduct is also qualified by seriousness. Political disagreement, unpopular policy or an unproven allegation is not automatically serious misconduct. The inquiry must establish the relevant conduct and assess its gravity in the constitutional setting.

Inability to perform the functions of office

This ground concerns inability rather than wrongdoing. The current rules say that, for an inability case, the word “charge” must be understood as the grounds for asserting removal. That avoids forcing a blame-based label onto an incapacity question.

The grounds are constitutional standards, not slogans. A criminal conviction is not written into section 89 as a prerequisite. Conversely, the existence of an investigation, complaint, adverse report or criminal allegation does not by itself establish a section 89 ground. The Assembly process must connect evidence to the precise constitutional ground.

Section 89 applies only to the President

Section 89 is the removal mechanism for the President of the Republic. It does not govern the removal of every constitutional office-bearer.

Different provisions apply to, among others:

• the President or Cabinet through a motion of no confidence under section 102;
• judges under section 177;
• the Public Protector and Auditor-General under section 194;
• members of certain Chapter 9 institutions under their governing provisions; and
• a Premier under section 130.

Using “impeachment” generically can obscure the correct constitutional route, voting threshold and consequence.

Stage one: an Assembly member initiates the process

Rule 129A allows any member of the National Assembly to call for removal by a substantive notice of motion under Rule 124(6). A petition, media report, party statement or public accusation does not itself become a section 89 motion.

The motion must:

1. state a clearly formulated and substantiated charge;
2. show prima facie that the President committed a serious constitutional or legal violation, committed serious misconduct, or suffers from an inability to perform the office;
3. attach all evidence on which the member relies;
4. relate to action or conduct performed by the President in person; and
5. comply with the Constitution, law and Assembly rules.

The June 2026 Rules Committee report explains that personal performance includes an instruction by the President to another person where the instruction itself constitutes the alleged serious violation or misconduct. It is not enough to attribute every act of government automatically to the President without identifying the relevant personal act or instruction.

For inability, the motion must set out the grounds for saying that the President cannot perform the functions of office. The rule does not require the motion to pretend incapacity is misconduct.

Stage two: the Speaker checks compliance

The Speaker does not decide whether the constitutional ground has been proved at this stage. Rule 129B allows the Speaker to consult the initiating member so that the motion meets Rule 129A's criteria.

The distinction is important:

• compliance asks whether there is a properly formulated, supported motion within the rules;
• the panel asks whether sufficient evidence exists for the specified ground;
• the committee tests the veracity and seriousness of the charge; and
• the Assembly decides whether to remove.

When the motion is in order, Rule 129C requires the Speaker to refer it and its supporting documents immediately to an independent panel. The Speaker must inform the Assembly and the President of the referral without delay.

If the Speaker asks for correction, read the correspondence and revised motion before announcing that the process has begun or ended. A non-compliant first submission can be amended; a referral is a procedural threshold, not a finding against the President.

Stage three: the independent panel conducts a preliminary enquiry

The Assembly establishes a panel when required. It consists of three fit and proper, competent, experienced and respected South Africans who collectively possess the necessary legal competence and experience. A judge may be included.

Political parties represented in the Assembly receive a reasonable opportunity to nominate suitable people. The Speaker considers the nominees and appoints the panel. If a judge is appointed, the Speaker acts in consultation with the Chief Justice. The Speaker appoints one panellist as chair.

The panel must be independent and apply the Constitution, law and rules impartially, without fear, favour or prejudice.

What the panel decides

The panel makes a preliminary recommendation on whether sufficient evidence exists to show one of the three section 89 grounds. It does not conduct the full Impeachment Committee inquiry and does not remove the President.

Under Rule 129G as adopted in June 2026, the panel must report within 90 days. The former rules and older Parliament summaries often refer to 30 days, with a later supplementary extension mechanism. The current prospective rule states 90 days directly.

What information the panel uses

The panel works from written or recorded information. It may, in its sole discretion, allow an Assembly member to place relevant written or recorded material before it within a set period.

It must:

• give the President copies of all information available to it relating to the enquiry;
• give the President a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing to relevant allegations;
• avoid an oral hearing;
• stay within the written and recorded material permitted by the rule; and
• explain its findings and recommendation, including any minority view.

All three panellists must be present for the panel to proceed. The panel may arrange its work only within the boundaries set by the rules.

Stage four: the panel report determines the next route

The 2026 amendments create two routes after the panel reports.

If sufficient evidence exists

The Speaker informs the Assembly of the report, gives the President a copy and the matter must be referred to the Impeachment Committee. Rule 129P says the Assembly is bound by the panel's conclusion that sufficient evidence exists.

The Assembly does not conduct an intervening political vote on whether to ignore a positive panel conclusion. This is the central correction following Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly [2026] ZACC 17.

If sufficient evidence does not exist

The Speaker must schedule the report for Assembly consideration. The Assembly may nevertheless resolve that a section 89 enquiry should proceed. If it does, the matter goes to the Impeachment Committee.

This asymmetry matters. A positive panel conclusion mandates referral; a negative conclusion does not absolutely prevent the Assembly from proceeding.

Why the 2026 Constitutional Court judgment changed the sequence

The 2018 rules allowed the Assembly to consider the panel report and decide whether to proceed, even after a positive panel conclusion. In May 2026, the Constitutional Court held former Rule 129I unconstitutional and invalid and set aside a 2022 Assembly decision that had declined committee referral.

The structural problem was not that the independent panel could remove the President—it could not. The problem was that the rule allowed majoritarian voting to stop the constitutionally necessary truth-finding stage without a proper determination of whether a section 89 ground existed.

The Court's interim reading-in required committee referral. Parliament then revised Rules 129A–129Q, and the Assembly adopted the Rules Committee report on 23 June 2026. The report states that the amendments are not retrospective. Historical proceedings must therefore be read with the rule and court order applicable to them; the current process for a new motion uses the adopted version.

The earlier Constitutional Court decision in Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker [2017] ZACC 47 supplies the foundation. It held that section 89 requires a determination that a listed ground exists before removal and required the Assembly to make rules regulating that process.

Stage five: the Impeachment Committee conducts the full enquiry

Rule 129J establishes an Impeachment Committee for section 89 enquiries. The Speaker determines its size subject to the general committee-composition rule, and every party in the Assembly must be represented. Members are appointed when required, and the committee elects its chair.

The committee must establish the veracity and, where necessary, the seriousness of the charges. This is the fact-finding and evaluative stage that the preliminary panel does not replace.

The committee must conduct the enquiry:

• reasonably;
• in a procedurally fair manner; and
• within a reasonable timeframe.

The President has the right to be heard in defence and may be assisted by a legal practitioner or another expert of the President's choice. The committee has the powers applicable to parliamentary committees under the Constitution, applicable law and Assembly rules.

A committee question is decided when the required quorum is present and a majority of members present agree. The report must include all views, including minority views.

There is no single constitutional number of days for the entire committee process. The current rule requires a reasonable timeframe. Statements predicting a final vote on a fixed date should be checked against the committee programme, procedural rulings, litigation and any formally adopted timetable.

Stage six: the committee reports findings and a recommendation

When the enquiry ends, the committee reports to the Assembly immediately. Its report must contain:

• findings on each charge in the removal motion;
• a recommendation on whether the President should be removed; and
• reasons for the findings and recommendation.

The report must be scheduled for urgent consideration and debate, taking the Assembly programme into account.

The current rules distinguish findings from recommendation. Rule 129P makes the Assembly bound by the committee's findings on whether charges are established, but not by its recommendation on removal. The Assembly may vote to remove only if the committee report finds that at least one charge is established.

If the report recommends removal, Rule 129O requires the removal question to be put directly to the Assembly. The recommendation still does not remove the President; the constitutional vote does.

Stage seven: the National Assembly votes

Section 89 vests removal power in the National Assembly alone. A valid resolution requires support from at least two thirds of its members, not merely two thirds of members present and voting.

For the Assembly's standard 400 seats, Appendix B to the current rules states the minimum as 267 affirmative votes. Abstentions, absences and votes against removal do not count as supporting votes.

If the threshold is met, the current rule says the President is removed with immediate effect. If it is not met, the President is not removed under that resolution, even where a committee found a constitutional ground established.

The distinction follows the constitutional word “may”. Establishing a ground is necessary before removal, but the separate two-thirds decision is still required.

What happens immediately after removal

A removal creates a vacancy in the presidency. Section 90 sets the acting order:

1. the Deputy President;
2. a Minister designated by the President;
3. a Minister designated by the other Cabinet members; and
4. the Speaker, until the Assembly designates another member.

Section 86 requires an election to fill a vacancy at a time and date determined by the Chief Justice, no more than 30 days after the vacancy occurs.

The consequences for the removed office-holder depend on the ground.

If removal is under section 89(1)(a) for a serious constitutional or legal violation, or section 89(1)(b) for serious misconduct, section 89(2) says the person may not receive benefits of the office and may not serve in any public office.

Section 89(2) does not attach those consequences to removal for inability under section 89(1)(c). Rule 129Q says presidential benefits must be dealt with strictly under the Constitution.

Section 89 is not a motion of no confidence

Section 102(2) allows the Assembly, by a majority of its members, to pass a motion of no confidence in the President. If it passes, the President, other Cabinet members and Deputy Ministers must resign.

The differences are substantial:

• section 89 requires a specified constitutional ground; section 102 tests political confidence;
• section 89 requires a two-thirds supporting vote; section 102 requires a majority;
• section 89 uses the panel and committee truth-finding structure; a no-confidence motion follows its own rules;
• section 89 removes the President under the resolution; section 102 requires resignation of the President and the wider executive group identified in the Constitution; and
• section 89(2) can bar benefits and future public office after removal for violation or misconduct; section 102 contains no equivalent consequence.

A serious allegation may prompt either political route, but they are not interchangeable. The constitutional-rights checklist can help map the underlying constitutional provisions without treating it as a litigation opinion.

What courts can and cannot do

Courts may review whether the Assembly, Speaker, panel or committee complied with the Constitution and lawful rules. The judicial-review glossary explains this legality function, and the administrative-law glossary provides related public-power concepts.

Courts do not take over the National Assembly's final section 89 vote. The Constitution assigns removal to the Assembly. Judicial intervention can declare a rule or decision invalid, require a constitutional process, or set aside unlawful action while respecting the Assembly's institutional role.

Both the 2017 and 2026 Constitutional Court judgments show that separation of powers does not place parliamentary procedure beyond constitutional review. It does, however, shape the remedy and prevent a court from simply substituting itself as the political removal decision-maker.

For case-specific advice on parliamentary legality or review, the constitutional-lawyer guide and administrative-lawyer guide identify relevant practitioner roles.

How to read section 89 news accurately

Before describing a development as “impeachment”, identify the exact stage and source document.

Ask:

1. Has an Assembly member submitted a substantive Rule 129A motion?
2. Is the reported document the motion and attached evidence, or only a public statement?
3. Has the Speaker found the motion in order?
4. Has the Speaker referred it to an independent panel?
5. Which current rule governs the panel's timeframe?
6. Has the President received the material and an opportunity to respond?
7. Did the panel find sufficient evidence, insufficient evidence or make mixed charge-specific findings?
8. Has the matter reached the Impeachment Committee?
9. Is a document a committee procedural ruling, evidence-leader submission, finding or final report?
10. Which charges did the committee find established?
11. What did the committee recommend, separately from its findings?
12. Has the report been scheduled for Assembly debate?
13. Is the pending vote a procedural decision or the final section 89 removal resolution?
14. How many affirmative votes were recorded?
15. Was the two-thirds-of-all-members threshold met?
16. Which constitutional ground supports any removal?
17. Do section 89(2) consequences apply to that ground?
18. Has litigation altered a rule, report, programme or step?

Use Parliament's minutes, ATC reports, committee page and formal statements as the event record. A party's press release can explain its position but is not proof that the institutional step occurred.

Source and review note

This is a neutral explanation of constitutional structure, not an assessment of any current or former President, pending allegation, panel report, committee proceeding or court application. The source review covered the Constitution, the June 2026 adopted rules and Assembly minutes, Parliament's rules register and May 2026 implementation statement, and the 2017 and 2026 Constitutional Court judgments. A qualified South African constitutional-law reviewer must verify current rules, later judgments, Assembly decisions, committee programmes, charge-specific findings and any retrospective issue before publication or event-specific use.

Authoritative sources used:

• Constitution, Chapter 5, especially sections 86 and 89 to 102.
• Constitution, Chapter 4, especially the Assembly's accountability, oversight and rule-making functions.
• Fifth Report of the National Assembly Rules Committee, 19 June 2026, containing the revised Rules 129A–129Q.
• National Assembly minutes of 23 June 2026, recording adoption of the Rules Committee report.
• Parliament's National Assembly Rules register, listing the Ninth Edition and adopted subsequent rules.
• [Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Speaker [2017] ZACC 47](https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2017/47.html), on antecedent findings and the duty to create a section 89 procedure.
• [Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker [2026] ZACC 17](https://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2026/17.html), invalidating the former Rule 129I and the decision not to refer a positive panel report.
• Speaker's 11 May 2026 implementation statement, recording the interim consequence and rules-amendment route after the judgment.

FAQs

Related Lexuno paths