National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has hit back at opposition parties calling for her removal, labeling the recent onslaught against her as a campaign driven by misinformation and the selective use of facts. The Speaker has come under intense pressure following her decision last week to abide by the court’s outcome rather than oppose an interdict application filed by President Cyril Ramaphosa. The President’s application seeks to pause his ongoing impeachment proceedings, a move that has sparked political outrage and led the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) to file a formal motion of no confidence against Didiza, supported by the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party.
The controversy centers on the perception that by choosing to abide by the court rather than fighting the President’s interdict, Didiza is undermining the work of Parliament’s Impeachment Committee. Critics, including those from the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the African Transformation Movement (ATM), have accused the Speaker of bias and failure to uphold the independence of the legislative branch. The ATM has gone as far as demanding that Didiza release the specific legal opinion she utilized to justify her unconventional stance, insisting that the public has a right to know the basis of her legal strategy.
In her defense, Didiza argued that a false narrative has been deliberately fostered by her political rivals to frame her as an antagonist to the accountability process. She maintains that since the Constitutional Court ordered the establishment of the Impeachment Committee, she has followed its directives with total precision. She pointed to her efforts to bolster the committee’s legitimacy by ensuring broad representation, specifically noting that she included 16 of the 18 political parties in Parliament to ensure that the process remained inclusive and representative of the electorate’s will.
Didiza further clarified her commitment to parliamentary integrity by pointing out her dismissal of a proposal that sought to limit membership on the committee only to MPs deemed “fit and proper.” By rejecting that proposal, she asserted that she was defending the fundamental rights of all duly elected representatives to participate in essential parliamentary oversight. According to the Speaker, her actions have consistently been geared toward strengthening the institution rather than shielding the executive, refuting claims that she has prioritized party loyalty over her constitutional obligations.
Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo reinforced these sentiments, arguing that the allegations leveled against Didiza are factually inconsistent with her track record. He reminded the public that when the President’s legal team initially approached her to halt all impeachment proceedings pending a judicial review of the Section 89 report, Didiza flatly refused. Mothapo argued that it is logically impossible for the Speaker to be accused of undermining the committee’s work when she explicitly rejected the exact legal maneuvers that would have brought the committee’s functions to a complete standstill.
Ultimately, the Speaker’s office maintains that the no-confidence motion is not a genuine grievance regarding parliamentary procedure, but rather a political tactic built on a foundation of distortions. Mothapo stated that the assertions contained in the EFF’s motion are directly contradicted by Didiza’s consistent implementation of the Constitutional Court’s rulings. As the situation unfolds, the Speaker remains resolute in her position, insisting that her decisions remain compliant with both the law and her responsibilities to Parliament, despite the growing chorus of opposition demands for her resignation.