Speaker Thoko Didiza survives no-confidence vote over Phala Phala handling

Speaker of the National Assembly Thoko Didiza survived a motion of no confidence on Wednesday, with MPs voting 282 to 101 against her removal. The motion, brought by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) under section 52(4) of the constitution, alleged that Didiza failed to uphold parliament's duty to hold the executive to account. The dispute centers on Didiza's decision not to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa's court bid to interdict parliamentary public impeachment proceedings regarding the Phala Phala scandal, which involved the theft of dollars from the president's private game farm.

EFF leader Julius Malema argued that Didiza prioritized the ANC and the president over the constitution. He claimed she ignored her own legal team's advice to challenge the interdict and instead sought a second opinion from a firm linked to a former ANC official. In response, ANC chief whip Mdumiseni Ntuli stated that Didiza had complied with the Constitutional Court's judgment by establishing the impeachment committee and transmitting the section 89 panel report to the president. He argued that once the committee was constituted, it became the committee's responsibility to litigate, not the speaker's.

Several parties expressed criticism of Didiza's decisions while still voting against her removal. The Democratic Alliance (DA) and ActionSA both stated that while the speaker's handling of the litigation raised questions about parliament's independence, the shortcomings did not meet the threshold required for removal from office. The IFP and Rise Mzansi similarly argued that her actions did not demonstrate an abandonment of the accountability process.

Framing of the event differed across political perspectives. Center-left coverage emphasized the broader concerns regarding parliament's authority and the executive's influence, noting that some ANC members framed the motion as an attack on a black woman during Women's Month. Center-right coverage focused more on the procedural details of the vote and the legal arguments regarding the speaker's specific duties versus those of the impeachment committee.