By Lebone Rodah Mosima
Some opposition parties have accused National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza of abandoning her constitutional duty after she chose not to directly oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s urgent court bid to halt impeachment proceedings against him.
Parliament confirmed on Sunday that Didiza had resolved to “file a notice to abide by an explanatory Affidavit alongside the Impeachment Committee’s opposition papers” in the Western Cape High Court.
The court application seeks to stop the work of the Section 89 impeachment committee pending the finalisation of Ramaphosa’s review application.
Parliament said Didiza’s explanatory affidavit would assist the court on “the stringent constitutional obligations on the National Assembly to proceed with and finalise the section 89 proceedings”.
Parliament said Ramaphosa’s legal team had previously asked the Speaker’s office to halt the committee’s work, but the request “was not acceded to, because doing so would have been in contempt of the Court and in terms of the Rules of the National Assembly the matter is in the hands of the Impeachment Committee, which should not be interfered with”.
The Impeachment Committee, chaired by Makashule Gana, has resolved to oppose Ramaphosa’s application and asked Didiza to support its position.
The EFF called Didiza’s decision “reckless, irrational, and irresponsible” and a “shameful abdication of constitutional responsibility by the Speaker”.
“The impeachment process is not a personal dispute between the President and his political opponents. It is a constitutional mechanism designed to ensure that no individual, regardless of status or office, is above the law,” the EFF said.
The party said the committee had taken a decision, supported by an “overwhelming majority of members,” to oppose Ramaphosa’s application and had relied on legal advice that “a lower court cannot interdict a constitutionally mandated parliamentary process”.
The EFF accused Didiza of ignoring legal advice, saying she had “chosen a partisan and irrational path”.
“This effectively means the Speaker is disregarding two competent legal opinions, one obtained by the Impeachment Committee and one obtained by herself, both of which strongly support opposition to the President’s application,” the party said.
The EFF said it was “losing confidence in Didiza,” accusing her of repeatedly showing “her inability to discharge her constitutional responsibilities as the head of an independent arm of the state.”
“Her conduct continues to undermine Parliament’s integrity and independence, while subordinating it to the factional political interests of the ANC and its President,” the party said.
The MK Party also rejected Didiza’s decision, saying it was “deeply concerning because it risks weakening Parliament’s constitutional duty to hold the executive accountable”.
It said Parliament’s legal processes had produced advice supporting a particular course of action, and any decision to depart from that position had to be “carefully justified and explained”.
“History has a way of judging harshly those who, at critical moments, fail to defend constitutional principles, accountability and the integrity of democratic institutions,” the MK Party said.
It said Parliament “belongs to the people of South Africa” and must remain an institution that protects “transparency, oversight and the rule of law”.
ATM parliamentary leader Vuyolwethu Zungula also criticised Didiza, accusing her of ignoring a legal opinion she had commissioned at parliamentary expense.
Zungula said Ramaphosa’s application sought to restrict Parliament’s constitutional duties under sections 42 and 55 of the Constitution, and that Didiza had a duty to defend the institution.
“The speaker-the head of the institution-has a legal obligation to ensure that Parliament does operate in line with the constitution and anything that seek to constrain or is a threat to the work of Parliament,” Zungula said.
“The speaker must be the person to oppose it, therefore it cannot be that the speaker then decides to abide, whereas the legal duty she has was is to oppose, especially in light that the speaker received, in fact, not even received a legal opinion.”
He said the legal opinion had made it clear that the correct constitutional course was for the Speaker to oppose the application, but that she had failed to act accordingly.
INSIDE POLITICS
