National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has rejected allegations that she failed to defend Parliament’s constitutional authority in the Section 89 impeachment process against President Cyril Ramaphosa, insisting that her actions have strengthened rather than undermined the work of Parliament’s impeachment committee.
The response comes after the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) tabled a motion of no confidence against Didiza, accusing her of shielding Ramaphosa by refusing to oppose his urgent court application seeking to halt Parliament’s Section 89 impeachment inquiry.
In a statement, Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo accused critics of engaging in “misinformation, selective interpretation of facts and deliberate attempts” to portray the Speaker’s implementation of the Constitutional Court judgment as being inconsistent with the work of the impeachment committee.
“That narrative is demonstrably false and the record speaks for itself,” he said.
Mothapo said that from the moment the Constitutional Court handed down its judgment directing the National Assembly to proceed with the impeachment process, Didiza acted “immediately and without delay” to implement every aspect of the ruling.
Mothapo said she constituted the Section 89 Impeachment Committee, formally referred the Independent Panel Report to it, initiated a review of the National Assembly Rules where required, determined the programme and institutional arrangements for the committee’s work, and ensured that it received the legal, procedural and administrative support necessary to carry out its mandate.
“Far from weakening the Committee, the Speaker strengthened it,” he said.
According to Parliament, Didiza also departed from a strict mathematical application of proportional representation to ensure that all 16 political parties represented in the National Assembly were included in the committee.
The result was a 31-member committee — one of the largest parliamentary committees constituted since the advent of democracy — which Parliament said strengthened the inclusivity, legitimacy and public confidence of the impeachment process.
Parliament further rejected the EFF’s central allegation that Didiza had failed to support the committee’s work by not opposing Ramaphosa’s urgent application before the Western Cape High Court.
Mothapo said that before approaching the court, the President’s legal representatives had requested that Didiza suspend the work of the impeachment committee pending the outcome of the litigation.
“The Speaker unequivocally declined that request,” he said.
Parliament believe Didiza refused because the Constitutional Court had directed that the Section 89 process must continue and because, once the Independent Panel Report had been referred to the committee, the National Assembly Rules required that it be allowed to exercise its mandate independently and without interference.
“Had the Speaker wished to halt, frustrate or undermine the Committee’s work, she had the opportunity to do so. She refused.”
Mothapo said it was therefore difficult to reconcile allegations that the Speaker opposed the committee’s work with what it described as the undisputed fact that she had rejected the very request that would have brought the inquiry to a standstill.
He also dismissed claims that Didiza had ignored legal advice recommending that Parliament oppose Ramaphosa’s application.
Parliament said criticism had been fuelled by selective references to portions of a leaked legal opinion, stressing that legal opinions are advisory rather than binding.
“The Speaker considered the legal advice received together with other constitutional, legal, procedural and institutional considerations before exercising the independent judgment entrusted to her by the Constitution,” Mothapo said.
It further argued that Didiza’s decision to file a notice to abide, accompanied by an explanatory affidavit, did not place her at odds with the impeachment committee.
According to Parliament, the committee and the Speaker perform distinct constitutional functions within the Section 89 process.
It said the committee had elected to oppose Ramaphosa’s application because the litigation directly affected its mandate, while the Speaker’s explanatory affidavit placed before the court Parliament’s constitutional obligations, the steps already taken to implement the Constitutional Court judgment, and the broader institutional context.
“These are not competing positions. They are complementary and mutually reinforcing legal approaches that reflect the distinct constitutional responsibilities of the Speaker and the Impeachment Committee,” Mothapo said.
Mothapo maintained that together the two approaches provide the court with a comprehensive understanding of Parliament’s constitutional obligations and its commitment to implementing the Constitutional Court’s judgment in full.
The institution also confirmed that it had received the EFF’s proposed motion of no confidence against Didiza.
Mothapo said the motion would first have to satisfy the procedural requirements of the National Assembly Rules before it could proceed through the parliamentary process.