CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — A motion of no confidence against National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza is set to be voted on in Parliament this Wednesday, following claims that she failed to uphold her constitutional duties regarding the Phala Phala impeachment process.
The motion was originally tabled in June by Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema. It stems from Didiza’s decision not to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application in the Western Cape High Court, which sought to halt the Parliamentary impeachment committee’s work over the Phala Phala matter.
The procedural format of the upcoming vote has already sparked debate. EFF MP Hlengiwe Mkhaliphi emphasized that the party wants the vote to take place in person, arguing that removing the Speaker via a virtual platform would not carry the same political weight.
In response, ANC Chief Whip Mdumiseni Ntuli clarified that the Wednesday meeting encompasses multiple agenda items, including debating the EFF’s motion. He assured members that the significance of the proceedings would not be downplayed simply because the discussion is held virtually.
Ultimately, the method of voting rests with the deputy speaker. National Assembly Deputy Speaker Dr Annelie Lotriet noted that while the constitution and parliamentary rules stipulate in-person proceedings, a prior decision by chief whips mandated virtual meetings due to the compressed timeframe leading up to an election. She added that Parliament would determine the most suitable manner of voting when the time comes.
Despite the heightened political tension, political analyst Prof Ntsikelelo Breakfast of Nelson Mandela University predicts the motion is unlikely to succeed or “get off the ground.”
Prof Breakfast explained that the motion lacks the necessary support across the political spectrum. While the Speaker is intended to be the non-partisan image of the legislative institution, he noted the motion’s rationale is to expose alleged double standards—specifically, Didiza’s perpetual silence when the president instituted legal action to pause the impeachment committee’s work.
When challenged previously about the interim relief, Didiza stated she was neither opposing nor supporting the application, choosing instead to subject herself to the court’s decision on the road ahead. Prof Breakfast described this stance as a fundamental error, reflecting a broader organizational culture where the ruling party closes ranks to protect the president, mistakenly viewing legislative accountability as an attack rather than a core constitutional function.
He pointed out that this is not a unique situation, noting that past speakers have faced similar accusations of protecting the executive. Didiza, he argued, is caught between a rock and a hard place, wearing two caps: head of the legislative institution and a member of a party where the president is her political head.
However, coalition dynamics are expected to shield the Speaker from removal. Prof Breakfast highlighted that the current Government of National Unity (GNU) represents a power-sharing arrangement. He reasoned that it is highly unlikely for parties like the Democratic Alliance (DA) to join forces with the EFF on this issue, as doing so would convey a destabilizing message.
Recalling that the ANC and DA struck an eleventh-hour deal to elect Didiza to the position, Prof Breakfast concluded that the coalition partners will not vote to remove her, as such a move could cause the entire government arrangement to fall apart. Any lingering disagreements regarding her conduct are expected to be addressed behind closed doors rather than through a public vote of no confidence.