National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza survived a no-confidence motion brought by the EFF on Wednesday. Lawmakers voted 282 to 101 against her removal after a virtual parliamentary sitting. The opposition party accused her of bias regarding President Cyril Ramaphosa’s impeachment inquiry.
National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza survived the EFF’s motion of no confidence during an online parliamentary sitting on Wednesday. The motion was defeated after 282 members of Parliament voted against the proposal, while 101 MPs voted in favor of her removal.
The showdown marked the first time Didiza faced a motion of no confidence since she assumed the speakership two years ago. The session took place entirely on a virtual platform, with Deputy Speaker Annelie Lotriet presiding from the Good Hope Chamber in Parliament while lawmakers dialed in from remote locations, including African National Congress MPs gathered in a Cape Town hotel.
The Phala Farm Interdict and the Roots of the Conflict
The Economic Freedom Fighters tabled the motion following Didiza’s decision not to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application in the Western Cape High Court. Ramaphosa launched the legal bid to halt parliamentary public impeachment proceedings linked to the Phala Phala saga, where an independent panel report previously found he had a case to answer regarding undeclared foreign currency found stored in sofa cushions.
EFF leader Julius Malema argued during the two-hour debate that the Speaker’s choice to file a notice to abide rather than fight the court bid constituted a failure to defend the legislative branch. Malema pointedly criticized her institutional loyalty, arguing that presiding officers must serve the entire legislature rather than the governing party.
“That oath is owed to all 400 members of this House and to the public who elected them, not merely to the party that put you here as a Speaker.”
Julius Malema, EFF Leader, via eNCA
Further fueling the opposition’s anger, reports indicated Didiza disregarded legal advice obtained directly from her own office recommending that Parliament oppose the impeachment litigation. Instead, she sought guidance from an outside law firm connected to a former ANC official, which advised her to accept the court’s ruling.
Aligned Opposition and Government of National Unity Pushback
While the EFF secured backing from the uMkhonto weSizwe Party, the African Christian Democratic Party, the African Transformation Movement, and other smaller parties, the governing coalition held firm. Parties within the Government of National Unity, holding 287 of the 400 total seats in the National Assembly, marshaled their numbers to defeat the measure.
ANC Chief Whip Mdumiseni Ntuli strongly defended Didiza’s actions on the floor, arguing that she acted properly by implementing the Constitutional Court’s orders while allowing the impeachment committee to function.
“We believe that this, without any merit, is devoid of any principle. The Speaker acted correctly.”
Mdumiseni Ntuli, ANC Chief Whip in the National Assembly, via eNCA
Ntuli warned that removing presiding officers merely because political factions disliked specific rulings would plunge the institution into chaos.
Democratic Alliance Stance and Institutional Boundaries
Other political formations drew a distinction between criticizing the Speaker’s legal strategy and removing her from office. Democratic Alliance MP Glynnis Breytenbach acknowledged that her party disagreed with how Didiza handled the interdict matter, but maintained that the threshold for a forced removal had not been met.
“The question before us is not whether the speaker made a mistake, she has. The question is whether those shortcomings are of such a nature and magnitude that this house should conclude that she has fundamentally failed to discharge the responsibilities of her office and should therefore be removed.”
Glynnis Breytenbach, DA MP, via TimesLIVE
Breytenbach added that the Democratic Alliance would continue to scrutinize the Speaker and defend the independence of Parliament against executive overreach, even while voting against the motion.
Divergent Perspectives Across the Political Spectrum
The parliamentary debate also featured sharp ideological clashes. Some ANC representatives framed the opposition’s push during Women’s Month as a politically motivated attack intended to tarnish a female leader’s career. Conversely, parties supporting the motion maintained that Didiza had capitulated to the executive branch.
MK Party Chief Whip Philasande Mkhize argued that choosing to abide by a court order during an executive legal challenge amounts to an abandonment of parliamentary oversight responsibilities. Meanwhile, ActionSA parliamentary leader Athol Trollip asserted that while executive loyalty remains a genuine concern, the no-confidence vote served primarily as a distraction from the core objective of holding President Ramaphosa accountable for the Phala Phala funds.
Legal Challenges and Remaining Accountability Questions
Despite the decisive vote in Parliament, the underlying legal battles over the executive branch and legislative oversight are far from over. The court review concerning the Section 89 report into the Phala Phala foreign currency theft is scheduled to begin its hearing on September 2, keeping the pressure on both the presidency and the leadership of the National Assembly.
