DIDIZA ‘RISKS WEAKENING PARLIAMENT’

Parties clash over President Cyril Ramaphosa’s impeachment interdict

SEVERAL political parties are furious over National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza’s decision not to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s interdict against the Impeachment Committee.

In a statement on Sunday, Parliament said that Didiza had resolved to file a notice to abide by an explanatory affidavit alongside the Impeachment Committee’s opposition papers.

The explanatory affidavit aims to assist the court in its final determination by clarifying aspects such as the National Assembly’s stringent constitutional obligations to proceed with and finalise the Section 89 proceedings.

The content of the explanatory affidavit is believed to be consistent not only with the Impeachment Committee’s stance but also with the Speaker’s actions since the Constitutional Court judgment.

Ramaphosa filed papers in the Western Cape High Court on 12 June, seeking an interdict against Didiza and Impeachment Committee Chairperson Makashule Gana.

He wants them barred from commencing the impeachment inquiry pending a decision on his review application regarding the Independent Panel report.

Ramaphosa’s papers stated that a case management meeting was held on 4 June 2026 to establish a timeline for reviewing the Independent Panel’s report. Judge Nathan Erasmus chaired the meeting.

He explained that he wants the committee’s proceedings delayed until after his review application is heard in September.

The committee met this week to consider its response to the application. It concluded that it would oppose the interdict application as a committee and would also approach the Speaker to support its position.

Subsequently, Committee Chairperson Makashule Gana approached Didiza with a request to oppose the President’s application. Some political parties in Parliament have also approached the Speaker with their own views on the matter.

Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said: “The Speaker, having considered all the views and processes, concluded that it would be important to file a notice to abide with an explanatory affidavit to complement the committee’s opposition papers and, most importantly, to explain to the court what Parliament has done to comply with the judgment of the Constitutional Court.

“Given the content of the explanatory affidavit, the Speaker believes that the stance adopted is not only necessary but is entirely consistent with the respective roles and responsibilities of the Assembly versus those of the Impeachment Committee,” he said.

The uMkhonto weSizwe Party (MK Party) rejected Didiza’s decision.

“The MK Party believes this decision is deeply concerning because it risks weakening Parliament’s constitutional duty to hold the executive accountable. The National Assembly has a responsibility to protect its processes and ensure that accountability mechanisms are not undermined.

“The party maintains that where Parliament’s own legal processes have produced advice supporting a particular course of action, any decision to depart from that position must be carefully justified and explained,” it said.

“Failure to do so creates concerns about the independence and credibility of Parliament.”

The EFF condemned her decision as “reckless, irrational and irresponsible”.

“This decision is a shameful abdication of constitutional responsibility by the Speaker and goes against established precedent in defending the integrity and independence of Parliament as an arm of the state.

“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.

“When Parliament initiates impeachment proceedings, it acts on behalf of the people of South Africa and in fulfilment of its constitutional oversight mandate.

“The Speaker, therefore, has a duty to defend Parliament’s authority and protect the separation of powers,” the party said.

DA spokesperson Jan de Villiers said the party believes the Constitutional Court has stated that the committee must do its work and, “therefore, we support the legal opinion” given to the committee, “that Parliament must oppose that application”. ActionSA expressed disappointment at Speaker Thoko Didiza’s decision, saying it reflected the ANC’s preference for “political protection over constitutional duty”.

The party argued that the Speaker’s refusal to act weakened Parliament’s role in holding the executive accountable and sent the wrong message about accountability at the highest level of government.

However, parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said the Speaker’s approach and that of the Impeachment Committee were not in conflict but were “complementary and mutually reinforcing”.

He said both sought to protect Parliament’s constitutional mandate, with the Speaker’s affidavit helping the court understand Parliament’s legal and institutional responsibilities.