Please find attached English and Afrikaans soundbites by George Michalakis, MP.
The Democratic Alliance notes with profound concern Speaker of the National Assembly Thoko Didiza’s decision not to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s application for an interdict in the Phala Phala impeachment matter, and her explanatory affidavit filed today, to that effect.
Instead of defending Parliament’s constitutional processes, the Speaker chose to file a Notice to Abide in the President’s High Court application.
This decision is deeply troubling.
It follows a majority decision of the Section 89 Impeachment Committee calling on the Speaker to oppose the President’s application. The Committee itself, as an organ of Parliament, lacks the legal standing and authority to incur legal expenses independently and therefore relies on the Speaker to defend its processes and decisions.
By refusing to do so, the Speaker has effectively disregarded the expressed will of a duly constituted parliamentary committee and abandoned her duty to protect Parliament’s institutional integrity.
The Speaker’s conduct cannot be viewed in isolation.
Earlier this week, she also delayed implementation of a majority decision of the Subcommittee on the Review of the National Assembly Rules. That decision sought to include a “fit and proper” requirement in the impeachment rules.
Whatever one’s view of the proposal, it was incapable of affecting the Phala Phala process retrospectively. Any legitimate concerns regarding the wording or implications of the amendment could easily have been referred back to the subcommittee without disrupting the work of Parliament.
Instead, the matter was unnecessarily delayed, creating the impression that procedural manoeuvres are being used to frustrate parliamentary accountability.
These developments raise serious questions about the Speaker’s independence.
When viewed alongside her hastily convened “constituency meeting” at Luthuli House shortly after the Phala Phala litigation commenced, South Africans are entitled to ask a simple but important question: does the Speaker serve Parliament, or does she serve the ANC?
The office of Speaker is not an extension of a political party. Once elected by the National Assembly, the Speaker assumes a constitutional responsibility to act impartially and to safeguard Parliament as an institution.
The Speaker’s loyalty must lie with the Constitution, with Parliament, and ultimately with the people of South Africa—not with the interests of a political party in government.
Unfortunately, Speaker Didiza’s actions increasingly suggest a reluctance to challenge her own party, even when the interests of Parliament require it.
Such deference may serve the ANC, but it weakens Parliament and undermines public confidence in one of the country’s most important democratic institutions.
Nor is this the first time concerns have arisen regarding the Speaker’s willingness to place Parliament’s interests above those of the ANC.
Earlier this year, the Speaker played a pivotal role in preventing meaningful scrutiny of the extraordinary 88% salary increase awarded to the Secretary to Parliament under the watch of her predecessors.
Rather than acknowledging the obvious concerns surrounding such a decision and supporting calls for transparency and accountability, the Speaker effectively endorsed the status quo. In doing so, she enabled efforts within the Joint Committee on the Financial Management of Parliament to shut down further investigation into a matter of significant public interest.
The cumulative effect of these decisions is deeply damaging. Parliament can only function effectively if its presiding officers are prepared to defend its authority, protect its processes, and uphold accountability without fear or favour. When the Speaker fails to do so, Parliament itself is diminished.
The constitutional role of the Speaker is clear. It is to defend Parliament’s independence, uphold its rules, and protect its oversight functions against interference from any quarter—including the Executive. It is not to facilitate political expediency. It is not to shield those in power from scrutiny. And it is certainly not to place party interests above constitutional obligations.
South Africans deserve a Parliament that is fearless in holding power to account. They deserve a Speaker who understands that her highest duty is to the institution she leads, not the party from which she came.
Parliament deserves stronger leadership. It deserves an independent Speaker. Most importantly, the people of South Africa deserve better than a Speaker who repeatedly chooses party loyalty over constitutional principle.
The Democratic Alliance will continue to fight for a Parliament that is transparent, independent, and uncompromising in its pursuit of accountability.