The defeat of the EFF no-confidence motion against the National Assembly Speaker, Thoko Didiza, was predictable. More unexpected was how Wednesday’s debate underscored concerns across party political lines about Parliament’s institutional independence and how it conducts its business.
“Ms Didiza is not fit to preside over a legislature whose role and constitutional responsibilities she is not willing to defend. She showed bias at a critical point in [our] democracy,” said EFF leader Julius Malema in support of the motion of no confidence against National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza.
His motion followed Didiza’s decision not to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s successful court bid to interdict parliamentary public impeachment proceedings in the Phala Phala saga. The President earlier launched a court review – the hearing starts on 2 September – against the Section 89 report that found he had a case to answer over the theft of dollars stuffed in sofa cushions on his private game farm, Phala Phala.
Malema pointed out that Didiza ignored her own legal team’s advice to challenge the interdict, choosing instead to “seek a legal opinion from the law firm of a former ANC official” – which advised her to accept the court’s decision.
The debate, which lasted more than two hours, highlighted deep concerns about how Didiza’s decision affects Parliament’s ability to oversee and hold the executive to account, while sparking broader criticism of the way Parliament operates.
DA MP Glynnis Breytenbach said Didiza’s decision raised “legitimate questions [about] whether Parliament was sufficiently defending its own constitutional authority and independence.
“When Parliament’s constitutional processes are challenged, the institution must be prepared to defend those processes robustly and without fear or favour. The Speaker’s office therefore carries a particular responsibility to ensure that Parliament is never perceived to be subordinate to the executive – and certainly not to the interests of any political party.”
Breytenbach said while democracy required Parliament to scrutinise its own performance and that of its presiding officers, the motion failed to make the case for Didiza’s removal.
“We will continue to scrutinise the Speaker. We will continue to defend the independence of this Parliament.”
Freedom Front Plus MP Heloïse Denner echoed this sentiment, noting that while Parliament was far from perfect and “serious shortcomings” remained unaddressed, the motion still fell short of the threshold required to remove Didiza.
ActionSA MP Athol Trollip said the motion did not meet the requirements for removal; disagreement with decisions did not constitute substantive grounds, and the focus must now be on holding the President to account.
“The President must account for the undeclared dollars and the exact quantity that was stolen from his farm. He needs to explain why they were stashed in a couch as opposed to being kept fully accounted for where ordinary South Africans normally keep their legitimate assets.”
Rise Mzansi MP Songezo Zibi said no one complained when Didiza shared all communications in this matter. “Litigation decisions are not supposed to be mindless – such as defending or opposing a position simply because the loudest voices say so.”
ANC speakers, by contrast, largely framed their opposition by referring to Women’s Month. Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi said the motion against Didiza was brought to “tarnish a black woman who worked so hard for her career”. Earlier, ANC MP Soviet Lekganyane expressed dismay that the motion aimed at “removing a female leader from office in Women’s Month”.
The debate – and the subsequent voting – showed MPs representing the Government of National Unity coalition opposed the motion, with the so-called progressive caucus centred on the EFF, the MK party and African Transformation Movement, voting in favour alongside the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP).
MK party MP Philasande Mkhize said the Speaker had abandoned Parliament, adding: “A Speaker who will not defend Parliament against the Presidency cannot preside over Parliament.”
ACDP MP Steve Swart said the failure to oppose Ramaphosa’s interdict was a dereliction of duty.
At one point the debate descended into a mini-debate over Malema’s PlayStation prowess, before Patriotic Alliance MP Marlon Daniels withdrew his comment that the EFF leader couldn’t win a PlayStation game. However, MPs continued sending emojis – usually applauding hands and thumbs-up, with a few hearts.
But the real breakdown came in a chaotic voting session peppered with flurries of points of order. The EFF repeatedly pointed out that many ANC MPs were sitting together at a hotel in Woodstock, Cape Town, asking why its request for a physical plenary had been declined.
Curiously, Didiza was allowed to vote (she voted “No”) in the motion against her. But her vote would not have made a difference in the overall result – 101 for the motion and 282 against.
The final tally leaves Didiza in office. But the larger arguments about Parliament’s institutional authority and willingness to exercise its constitutional responsibility to hold the executive to account are far from settled. DM
