National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has survived an Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) motion of no confidence over her handling of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal challenge to Parliament’s Phala Phala impeachment process.
The motion, brought by EFF leader Julius Malema, was defeated by 282 votes to 101 during a virtual sitting of the National Assembly on Wednesday.
Only the EFF, MK Party, African Transformation Movement (ATM), ACDP, NCC and United Africans Transformation supported the motion.
The motion centred on Didiza’s decision not to oppose Ramaphosa’s urgent court application, which resulted in an interim interdict halting the work of Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment committee.
The EFF accused Didiza of failing to protect Parliament’s constitutional independence and oversight powers by choosing not to oppose the President’s application.
Malema on Wednesday , argued that Didiza had a duty to defend the parliamentary decision she had communicated to Ramaphosa after the Constitutional Court directed Parliament to establish the impeachment process.
“The Constitutional Court says to you, You must go and do impeachment committee,” Malema said.
“And that decision you take and then you’ll hand over to the president. And the same person you hand over the document to, to say we are proceeding to impeachment processes takes Parliament to court.”
Malema said Didiza’s decision to file a notice to abide rather than oppose the application meant she had failed to defend Parliament when its decision was challenged.
“She has a duty to defend the same papers she gave to the president and the president says, I’m taking these papers to court,” he said.
“And meaning I’m taking your parliament, which you are heading, which has taken this decision to court.”
Malema rejected arguments that Didiza should be credited for establishing the impeachment committee in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s directive.
“We never said she’s not competent because she did not implement what the court said,” he said.
“We said she did not defend a decision which was well backed by the court, well instructed by court, and when it was being challenged, there was nowhere to be found.”
He said the motion was intended to hold the Speaker accountable for her decisions and was not simply an attempt at political point-scoring.
“That is the point. And there’s no political point we want to take from this debate that this is point scoring. No, it’s not about that,” Malema said.
“It’s about defending the integrity, the impartiality of the Speaker, and to hold this parliament accountable.”
However, parties that voted against the motion argued that while they had concerns about Didiza’s handling of the matter, those concerns did not meet the threshold required to remove her from office.
ActionSA said it would not support the motion, arguing that disagreement with a Speaker’s decision could not automatically become grounds for a vote of no confidence.
ActionSA MP Lerato Ngobeni said the party’s position was not an endorsement of every decision taken by Didiza or of the ANC-led government.
“In our assessment is that it does not,” Ngobeni said of whether the EFF had met the threshold for Didiza’s removal.
“A Motion of No Confidence cannot simply become the parliamentary remedy whenever a political party disagrees with a ruling, decision or exercise of discretion by the Speaker.”
Ngobeni said ActionSA had itself criticised aspects of Didiza’s handling of the Section 89 process but believed her conduct had demonstrated respect for the independence of the impeachment committee.
When Ramaphosa obtained the temporary interdict affecting the committee’s work, Didiza filed an explanatory affidavit rather than opposing the application herself, while the committee filed its own opposition.
ActionSA argued that this allowed the committee to determine its own legal position.
The party said it would continue scrutinising Didiza and challenging her where necessary, but that protecting the integrity of the Speaker’s office should not be confused with protecting the ANC.
“Protecting the integrity of the Office of the Speaker is not protecting the ANC. It is protecting Parliament,” Ngobeni said.
The ANC defended Didiza more forcefully, with Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi accusing the EFF of running what she described as a campaign of lies against the Speaker.
Kubayi argued that Didiza had acted in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s directions by establishing the impeachment committee and broadening its participation to include 16 of Parliament’s 18 political parties.
“The EFF has not only broken this important rule of political lying, they’ve also exposed and cemented their stance as political delinquency,” Kubayi said.
She rejected the EFF’s claim that Didiza had placed partisan political interests above Parliament’s constitutional obligations.
“If anything, the speaker has done the opposite of what the EFF is claiming since the Constitutional Court issued its judgement,” Kubayi said.
The ACDP, however, backed the motion, arguing that Didiza should have opposed Ramaphosa’s application.
ACDP MP Steve Swart accused the Speaker of giving what he described as a “limp wristed response” to the court application and questioned the legal advice she obtained before deciding not to oppose it.
“The speaker at great cost to Parliament obtained her own senior counsel opinion from advocate Pilla advising her to oppose the incident,” Swart said.
“Clearly not satisfied with this opinion, she then obtained a second opinion from a former ANC official who obviously advised her she did not oppose this a further cost to Parliament.”
Swart said Didiza’s conduct amounted to a failure to protect Parliament’s independence.
“By choosing political convenience of institutional defence, we believe that the speaker has failed the test of impartiality,” he said.
Rise Mzansi took the opposite view, saying Didiza had correctly left the impeachment committee to deal with the President’s court application.
MP Songezo Zibi argued that Didiza had established the committee specifically to handle matters relating to the impeachment process and should not interfere with its work.
“The Speaker initiated the formation of the Impeachment Committee specifically to handle all business pertaining to impeachment,” Zibi said.
“What the Committee says about any development in this process must be handled entirely by the Committee without the Speaker weighing in with unsolicited opinions.”
Zibi said requiring Didiza to oppose the President’s application herself could ultimately create a constitutional problem if her legal position differed from that of the committee.
“Honourable Didiza has dutifully met this obligation,” he said.
Rise Mzansi therefore rejected the motion and supported the continued work of the Section 89 committee.
Build One South Africa (BOSA) also opposed the motion, arguing that a vote of no confidence should be reserved for a broader failure to discharge the constitutional responsibilities of the Speaker’s office.
BOSA MP Nobantu Hlazo-Webster said the motion appeared to be “largely political in nature” and should not be allowed to distract Parliament from its oversight responsibilities.
“We don’t believe the threshold for a motion of no confidence has been met at this point,” she said.
However, BOSA raised broader concerns about the independence of the Speaker, arguing that the office should be separated from senior party political positions to strengthen public confidence in its impartiality.
ATM supported the EFF motion, arguing that Didiza’s decision not to oppose Ramaphosa’s court application undermined Parliament’s ability to hold the executive accountable.
ATM MP Thandiswa Linnen Marawu said the central issue was whether Didiza had defended Parliament when its constitutional authority was challenged.
“This is not about whether one supports President Ramaphosa or opposes him,” she said.
“It’s about whether parliament is independent enough to hold even the president accountable.”
Marawu argued that the President had his own legal team while the impeachment committee had resolved to oppose his application, leaving the Speaker with a responsibility to protect Parliament as an institution.
“The speaker must serve parliament, the commission and the people of South Africa, not the interest of the governing party or individuals in the executive,” she said.
The motion ultimately failed to secure the support needed to remove Didiza.
The outcome leaves the Speaker in office while the broader dispute over Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment process remains unresolved.
