CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — The EFF seeks removal of Thoko Didiza from her role as National Assembly Speaker, launching a formal motion over her management of the Phala Phala impeachment proceedings involving President Cyril Ramaphosa. The opposition party argues that the Speaker neglected her constitutional duties and acted recklessly during the fallout from the Section 89 panel report.
The core of the grievance stems from Didiza’s choice to file a “notice to abide” rather than formally opposing the President’s court application. Ramaphosa is currently pursuing a judicial review of the Section 89 panel report concerning the Phala Phala saga. According to the EFF, the Speaker deliberately ignored sound legal advice, failing to execute her constitutional obligations with the required integrity.
To advance their cause, the party is urgently calling on the National Assembly’s deputy speaker to convene an emergency meeting to debate the removal motion.
The Speaker’s Defense of Neutrality
In her defense, Speaker Didiza has maintained that her decision was rooted in a desire for strict neutrality. She explained that she relied on a secondary legal opinion, which led her to file a notice to abide by the court’s eventual decision rather than actively fighting the President’s review application. By stepping back, she intends to let the judiciary resolve the dispute.
However, the EFF contends that this passive stance effectively abandons Parliament’s oversight responsibilities. Critics of the Speaker’s approach argue that her refusal to formally oppose the President’s legal bid transforms the Speaker’s office into a protective shield for the executive branch.
Legal Counter-Moves in Parliament
Complicating the legal landscape further, Makashule Gana, the chairperson of the impeachment committee, has taken independent legal action. Gana recently filed an opposing affidavit that directly challenges President Ramaphosa’s application for a judicial review, highlighting a deep strategic divide within the parliamentary structures overseeing the Phala Phala matter.
Political Strategy and GNU Tensions
Analyzing the broader implications of the crisis, political analyst Dr. Levy Ndou suggests that the maneuver is as much about political positioning as it is about parliamentary procedure.
Dr. Ndou noted that while introducing a motion of no confidence is a perfectly valid constitutional mechanism, the timing and execution point toward a calculated strategy. He explained that leaders in high office must constantly weigh conflicting legal advice, and Didiza’s choice to embrace neutrality has understandably angered the EFF, who hold a contrasting view on how the Speaker should protect the legislature.
According to Dr. Ndou, the push to oust the Speaker is likely designed to keep the Phala Phala controversy in the public spotlight and inject fresh tension into the Government of National Unity (GNU). By forcing the deputy speaker to oversee the urgent meeting, the EFF is employing classic parliamentary tactics to mobilize support, persuade allies, and potentially coerce or threaten the positions of rival lawmakers.
The Optics of Parliamentary Warfare
Even if the EFF’s motion ultimately lacks the numerical support to succeed, Dr. Ndou argues that the political damage and messaging goals will still be achieved.
Filing the motion ensures that a formal complaint is lodged on the public record. More importantly, it cements a narrative among the public and political observers that the Speaker’s office lacks true neutrality and may be quietly aligned with specific political factions.
“Politicians are politicians,” Dr. Ndou observed, pointing out that in a highly polarized environment, rival parties and individuals will always scrutinize the Speaker’s decisions, looking for any sign of partisan bias toward her own political allies. The current crisis, therefore, perfectly illustrates how procedural tools are weaponized to challenge perceived partiality at the highest levels of the legislature.