National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza survived an EFF-led motion of no confidence on Wednesday,with MPs voting 282 to 101 against her removal over her handling of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala impeachment litigation.
Jan Gerber/News24
National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza survived a no confidence motion brought by EFF leader Julius Malema,with 282 votes against and 101 in favour.Malema accused Didiza of failing to defend Parliament over President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala interdict,but opponents argued the motion lacked merit.The debate saw heated exchanges,with accusations of political vendettas,misogyny,and disruptive behaviour from the EFF and MKP.For more political news,visit News24 Politics.
National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has survived the motion of no confidence brought against her by EFF leader Julius Malema.
Malema brought the motion to remove Didiza after she refused to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s interdict application to stop the impeachment committee’s investigation into Phala Phala.
The motion stated the following as grounds for Didiza’s removal:
Didiza failed to defend Parliament by not opposing Ramaphosa’s urgent interdict application in the Western Cape High Court to halt the Section 89 impeachment proceedings over the Phala Phala matter.She disregarded legal advice obtained by her own office recommending that Parliament oppose the impeachment litigation.She misled the public by creating the false impression that legal advice obtained by the impeachment committee justified her own decision not to oppose the interdict.She placed party political considerations above constitutional obligations,undermining her independence,impartiality and integrity as speaker of the National Assembly.
During a vote on Wednesday afternoon,the motion was defeated with 282 votes to 101.
Only the EFF,MK Party (MKP),African Transformation Movement (ATM),African Christian Democratic Party,National Coloured Congress (NCC) and United Africans Transformation (UAT) supported the motion.
ADVERTISEMENT
The parties who voted against removing Didiza noted that she allowed the impeachment committee to do its job,while some expressed their disagreement with her decision not to oppose Ramaphosa’s interdict application,but argued that it does not meet the threshold for her removal.
READ | Ramaphosa objects to impeachment committee evidence leader
Motivating for his motion,Malema said Didiza is the latest in a generation of speakers who put the president first,and that she failed to defend Parliament,which was a “grave abdication of duty”.
He noted that Didiza was among the ANC MPs who voted against sending the independent panel report to an impeachment committee in December 2022 – the vote the Constitutional Court overturned in May,thereby reigniting the impeachment process.
ADVERTISEMENT
“She did not want accountability then,and she does not want accountability now,” said Malema.
“We ought to be showing that no one is above the law,and this includes the president.”
The parties that supported the motion,the MKP,ACDP,ATM,NCC and UAT offered similar arguments.
MKP chief whip Philasande Mkhize said the speaker must defend Parliament,and Didiza abandoned the House when she filed a notice to abide.
“Assisting the court is not defending Parliament,” she said.
“She is capitulating.”
READ | ActionSA to challenge police process that cleared Ramaphosa’s security chief over Phala Phala
The parties that voted against the motion offered three motivations for not removing Didiza. Firstly,there was the argument that she acted correctly in implementing the Constitutional Court’s order and leaving the impeachment committee to conduct its affairs.
ANC chief whip Mdumiseni Ntuli said there was no delay tactics or obfuscation. He said Ramaphosa,not the speaker,exercised his right to “legally intervene”,which affected what the impeachment committee could do and its timeline.
He noted that Didiza told Ramaphosa she could not interfere with the committee’s work and that it controls its own proceedings.
He said the committee opposed Ramaphosa’s interdict application,and Didiza didn’t interfere,but she filed an explanatory affidavit to the court.
Ntuli said:
We cannot allow the EFF’s strange way of thinking to prevail.
The second argument raised by those who voted against the motion – notably the DA and ActionSA – was that Didiza’s decision did not meet the threshold for removal.
DA chief whip Glynnis Breytenbach said a motion of no confidence should not be a political instrument to remove the speaker when she made a ruling that a party disagrees with,and the DA did not believe a case had been made for her removal.
“It is not necessary to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly,” said ActionSA parliamentary leader Athol Trollip.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We agree that the blind loyalty of the ANC and their dogged defence of the president is wrong,” he said,adding that the motion is distracting from the real issue: holding Ramaphosa accountable for Phala Phala.
The third argument was that the EFF brought to motion to score political points.
PA chief whip Marlon Daniels said the motion was only about political vendettas and was nothing but hot air and manufactured outrage.
“You cannot remove a speaker on vibes,” he said.
He said Malema,called the commander-in-chief by his party,“cannot win a fight on a PlayStation”.
ALSO READ | Impeachment committee: MK Party wants to visit Phala Phala
This outraged the EFF,with their MP,Omphile Maotwe,calling Daniels “illiterate” – not the first time the EFF has called him that.
“He is reducing us to a mockery!” she charged.
When he closed the debate,Malema said Daniels was correct,he wouldn’t win a PlayStation competition,because he doesn’t play PlayStation. Another verbal skirmish between him and Daniels followed,with reciprocal allegations of drug use being made. Malema refused Daniels’ challenge for a public drug test,saying he doesn’t do tests with “small boys”.
ANC MP Soviet Lekganyane accused the EFF of misogyny and chauvinism in bringing a motion to remove a female speaker in Women’s Month. The EFF objected,and Deputy Speaker Annelie Lotriet ordered him to withdraw,which he did.
Malema said Lekganyane only said that because he wants to be mayor of Polokwane.
Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi also had the EFF up in arms,with Malema calling her “clownish” and “girlish”. Kubayi said calling her “girlish” proved Lekganyane’s point.
FF Plus MP Heloïse Denner described the motion as an attempt by a party struggling to score political points.
She said it is the EFF and MKP turning Parliament into a circus.
ADVERTISEMENT
DA parliamentary leader George Michalakis made a similar point:
You cannot accuse the speaker of not defending Parliament if you contribute to breaking it down.
As if to prove Denner and Michalakis’ points,the EFF and MKP raised several points of order during the voting process. The sitting took place virtually because the chief whips agreed to conduct parliamentary business this way to allow MPs to hit the campaign trail ahead of the 4 November local government elections. During the voting procedure,each MP was called upon to indicate their vote. The EFF were unhappy that several ANC MPs were in the same room and called them “voting cattle”.
After Daniels cast his vote,further shouting broke out between the PA and the EFF,and Lotriet removed Daniels and several EFF MPs from the platform.
When called upon to express her vote,Didiza calmly said: “I am voting no.”
Editor’s note: This article has been updated with additional information.
United News - unews.co.za