SOUTH AFRICA – The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) are intensifying their push to remove National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza from her position, with a highly anticipated motion of no confidence debate scheduled for next Wednesday. EFF Treasurer-General and Member of Parliament Omphile Maotwe has expressed firm confidence in the motion’s success, asserting that the legislative body must hold the Speaker accountable for her controversial management of the Section 89 impeachment process involving President Cyril Ramaphosa.
The motion, initially tabled by EFF leader Julius Malema in June, centers on Speaker Didiza’s decision not to oppose President Ramaphosa’s application in the Western Cape High Court. The application sought to halt the impeachment inquiry into his conduct regarding the Phala Phala farm matter. Maotwe emphasized that this represents a historic first for a motion of no confidence against a speaker in South Africa, highlighting the profound constitutional stakes involved.
Beyond the substantive allegations, the EFF has strongly condemned Parliament’s continued reliance on virtual sittings. Maotwe described the practice as a trivialization of parliamentary duties and a source of severe financial mismanagement. He pointed out that the parliamentary dome in Pretoria remains completely idle, despite the state paying monthly rentals for chairs, tables, air conditioning units, and library facilities specifically procured to facilitate full physical sessions.
Maotwe also revived the EFF’s longstanding proposal to relocate the legislative capital from Cape Town to the City of Tshwane. He argued that consolidating the administrative and legislative branches in a single city would eradicate the unnecessary expenditure and time wasted on frequent travel for brief questioning sessions. Dismissing arguments that virtual sittings are necessary due to the current campaign season and travel constraints, Maotwe stressed that the upcoming elections are not national elections. He maintained that Members of Parliament retain their core national duties regardless of local campaigning. Furthermore, he criticized the ANC for repeatedly rejecting the EFF’s logical proposal to synchronize local, provincial, and national elections, which would guarantee the public a full five-year cycle of uninterrupted service delivery.
Addressing the procedural dynamics, Maotwe acknowledged that while the Deputy Speaker recognizes constitutional rules mandating physical sittings, party whips have seemingly agreed to alternative arrangements. However, he remains undeterred, noting that no single party currently holds a requisite majority. He claimed that the ANC has consistently lost critical debates within the impeachment committee, failing to secure alignment even from its Government of National Unity (GNU) partners. Maotwe highlighted that political alliances are fluid, noting that “one minute is a very long time in politics,” and affirmed that the EFF is actively negotiating with other parties to ensure the Speaker is held accountable for acting with partisan bias rather than the impartiality required by the Constitution.
The interview also addressed President Ramaphosa’s recent formal objection to the appointment of Advocate Thandazani Madonsela as the evidence leader for the Section 89 impeachment committee, a development that coincided with ANC members abstaining during committee proceedings. Maotwe characterized the ANC’s maneuvering as confused and indicative of a mid-debate mandate shift following a substantive defeat.
He clarified that the ANC, which holds approximately nine seats on the committee, attempted to lobby other parties but ultimately failed to make its case. Maotwe dismissed the ANC Secretary-General’s subsequent letter raising the issue, explaining that Advocate Madonsela had already fully declared her professional history. He noted that her release from Judicial Service Commission (JSC) duties is a standard, universal administrative procedure applied to all advocates, indicating no personal bias or “bad blood” with the President.
Maotwe concluded that the President’s objections are merely a tactical delay designed to frustrate the committee’s work. He asserted that the President cannot dictate the appointment of the very evidence leader tasked with investigating his own conduct, and must ultimately accept his constitutional obligation to account to the people of South Africa before Parliament.
