CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — ANC Member of Parliament Cameron Dugmore has firmly defended National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza following the decisive collapse of the EFF motion of no confidence against her. Emphasizing her impartial leadership of the legislature, Dugmore noted that the overwhelming rejection of the motion underscores a broad parliamentary consensus that the Economic Freedom Fighters’ disruptive tactics have ultimately eroded their political backing.
During a recent broadcast addressing the legislative outcome, Dugmore highlighted that more than 70% of National Assembly members voted down what he described as a misguided and frivolous challenge. He expressed unwavering confidence in Didiza, praising her as an objective and highly capable manager of parliamentary proceedings whose actions consistently prioritize institutional integrity over partisan friction.
Addressing the broader political landscape, Dugmore drew a sharp distinction between the executive and legislative branches under South Africa’s current political arrangement. He clarified that while the country operates under a Government of National Unity (GNU) bound by a signed memorandum of understanding, there is no corresponding “parliament of national unity.” Consequently, every resolution, bill, and motion requires active, case-by-case engagement.
This collaborative process was precisely what unfolded in response to the EFF’s primary allegation: that Didiza had “sold out” by failing to defend parliament during the Section 89 impeachment process. Dugmore firmly rejected this narrative, pointing out that the Speaker strictly adhered to the Constitutional Court’s directive by establishing a dedicated impeachment committee. It was this independent body, comprising 31 members, that subsequently made the determination to oppose the Cape High Court judgment. By deferring to the committee’s authority, Didiza successfully kept her office above the political fray and protected the institution from being undermined.
Dugmore also addressed allegations from political opponents claiming that Didiza ignored initial internal advice to oppose an interdict, opting instead to seek outside legal opinions allegedly tied to ANC-affiliated firms. Critics have questioned whether public funds were wasted or improperly used to shield the president. Dugmore dismissed these claims, stating that while legal opinions are carefully considered, the Speaker’s overriding constitutional duty is to preserve the independence of parliament. He argued that Didiza’s decision to let the 31-member committee guide the response was the most prudent course of action, ultimately vindicating her leadership and proving that resources were not misappropriated. This approach garnered support from both GNU and non-GNU parties alike.
The discussion also shifted to the procedural format of the parliamentary sitting. The EFF had aggressively lobbied for an in-person session, arguing that virtual proceedings diminish the gravity of such motions. When pressed on why the ANC advocated for a virtual format—especially amid suggestions that members should be on the ground for election campaign work, and following reports that political figure Carl Niehaus was recently spotted in Woodstock—Dugmore offered a sharp rebuttal. He quipped that he wondered if Niehaus was still running an “MKP spy operation on behalf of the EFF,” before pivoting back to the substantive issue.
Concluding his remarks, Dugmore reaffirmed that while all parties acknowledge the necessity of continuing parliamentary work during an active election period, maintaining a virtual format remains the most practical, efficient, and mutually agreed-upon method for sustaining legislative functions without unnecessary disruption.
