The Economic Freedom Fighters has moved to remove National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, accusing her of failing to defend Parliament’s constitutional authority after she declined to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s court bid to halt the Section 89 impeachment inquiry.
The party announced that its Chief Whip Nontando Nolutshungu has formally written to Deputy Speaker Annelie Lotriet requesting that a Motion of No Confidence in Didiza be urgently scheduled in terms of the Constitution and the Rules of the National Assembly.
The motion, submitted in the name of EFF leader Julius Malema, marked a significant escalation in the political battle surrounding Parliament’s impeachment process against Ramaphosa over the Phala Phala matter.
In its submission, the EFF argues that Didiza failed to uphold Parliament’s constitutional responsibilities by choosing not to oppose Ramaphosa’s urgent application to interdict the Section 89 Impeachment Committee.
This despite Didiza having filed an explanatory affidavit alongside the Impeachment Committee’s opposing papers.
Didiza previously said the affidavit was intended to assist the court by outlining the constitutional obligations requiring the National Assembly to continue and conclude the Section 89 impeachment proceedings.
However ,the EFF alleges that Didiza “failed to defend Parliament in one of the most significant constitutional accountability processes in democratic South Africa” and instead “chose partisan political interests over Parliament’s constitutional obligations.”
The EFF further accuses the Speaker of disregarding legal advice recommending that Parliament oppose litigation aimed at halting the impeachment process and of misleading the public regarding the legal advice obtained by the impeachment committee.
According to the party, the Constitutional Court had already directed Parliament to proceed with the Section 89 impeachment process and Didiza had a constitutional obligation to protect Parliament’s institutional independence and authority.
The motion comes barely a day after the ANC publicly rallied behind the Speaker, insisting that she had acted appropriately by filing a notice to abide by the court’s decision rather than opposing Ramaphosa’s application.
Addressing the media on Thursday following the ANC’s National Working Committee meeting, ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula dismissed criticism of Didiza’s conduct.
“Let us be very clear about the role of the Speaker of the National Assembly,” Mbalula said.
“The Speaker stands above this contest. The institution of the National Assembly must remain neutral, and the Speaker is properly preserving that neutrality by filing a notice to abide by the decision of the court.”
Mbalula said Didiza had acted “correctly, constitutionally and with complete propriety” and insisted the ANC stood fully behind both her office and her personally.
“Any attempt to draw the Speaker into the merits of this matter is misplaced, and the ANC will not countenance it,” he said.
Ramaphosa has approached the Western Cape High Court seeking an urgent interdict to suspend the work of Parliament’s Section 89 Impeachment Committee until September, when the court is expected to hear his review application challenging the findings of the independent panel chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo.
The President argues that allowing the impeachment inquiry to proceed while the underlying panel report remains under judicial review would cause irreparable political and reputational harm.
The urgent application is scheduled to be heard on 15 and 16 July.
Despite the pending litigation, Parliament’s 31-member Section 89 Impeachment Committee, chaired by Makashule Gana, has resolved to oppose Ramaphosa’s application and continue preparing for the inquiry.
The latest move by the EFF also follows earlier calls from opposition parties for Didiza to recuse herself from matters relating to Ramaphosa’s impeachment process.
The ATM’s parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula argued that Didiza should step aside after meeting ANC leaders following the Constitutional Court’s judgment directing Parliament to proceed with the impeachment process.
Mbalula though said Zungula’s demand had no merit, as Didiza had not met with the ANC’s national executive committee when it met to deliberate on the court’s judgment in Cape Town in May.
He said he had told Didiza to leave the building and not attend the meeting.
The Constitutional Court struck down parliamentary rules that previously allowed the National Assembly to reject the recommendation of an independent panel and ordered Parliament to establish an impeachment committee to consider whether Ramaphosa committed serious violations warranting removal from office.
Should the motion be scheduled, Didiza’s continued tenure as Speaker would ultimately depend on whether a majority of National Assembly members support her removal under Section 52(4) of the Constitution.
