Didiza faces no-confidence motion over Ramaphosa impeachment process

The EFF will seek to remove National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza through a motion of no confidence on Wednesday, accusing her of failing to protect Parliament by not opposing President Cyril Ramaphosa’s bid to halt his impeachment proceedings.

National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza will face her first motion of no confidence on Wednesday, with the EFF accusing her of bias in handling legal matters linked to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s impeachment inquiry.

The motion was tabled in June by EFF leader Julius Malema over Didiza’s handling of the impeachment process against Ramaphosa.

The party says she failed to protect Parliament by choosing not to oppose Ramaphosa’s application to halt the proceedings.

Malema tabled the motion after Didiza decided not to oppose the president’s application for an interdict against the impeachment proceedings.

The Red Berets accused her of failing to discharge her constitutional responsibilities with independence, impartiality and integrity.

Didiza said she had chosen to abide by the court’s ruling, while the impeachment committee, through its chairperson, Makhashule Gana, filed a notice to oppose the application.

Deputy Speaker Annelie Lotriet said in a letter to EFF chief whip Nontando Nolutshungu that a motion to remove a speaker or deputy speaker must comply with Parliament’s rules.

It may not contain statements, arguments or other matters that are not strictly necessary to make the proposed resolution intelligible.

Lotriet said she was satisfied that Malema’s motion was substantively in order and complied with the rules, subject to a few procedural amendments.

“It is my view that the motion contains paragraphs with statements and allegations that must be considered in line with the provisions of Rule 85(2) and may therefore require substantiation or removal in the absence of sufficient evidence,” she wrote, referring to two paragraphs.

Nolutshungu accused Didiza of misleading the public by creating a false impression that legal advice obtained by the impeachment committee justified her decision not to defend Parliament.

She supported the allegation by providing a link to an interview Didiza gave to a radio station.

Nolutshungu also accused the Speaker of taking a decision of profound constitutional significance without proper legal justification and only seeking legal advice afterwards to validate a decision that had already been made.