EFF, DA blast Didiza’s decision not to oppose Ramaphosa’s impeachment interdict

The EFF has blasted National Assembly speaker Thoko Didiza for opting not to challenge President Cyril Ramaphosa’s court bid to stop parliament’s impeachment proceedings despite legal advice.

On Tuesday the EFF said that by ignoring the legal advice that her office should oppose Ramaphosa’s interdict, she had allowed her office to be used as a proxy of the ANC and the Union Buildings.

According to the EFF, Didiza’s remark that her decision not to oppose was based on two legal opinions she received was not factual.

In fact, they said, the second legal opinion she refers to was not for her office but that of the chairperson of the impeachment committee, Makashule Gana.

This showed that Didiza’s explanation and reliance on the second legal opinion were “disingenuous, irrational and dishonest”.

“The legal opinion obtained by the impeachment committee was sought specifically to advise the committee and its chairperson in relation to their constitutional obligations as separate respondents in the matter. It was never obtained to advise the speaker in her capacity as the first respondent,” said the EFF.

“The distinction is legal and material. The speaker and the chairperson of the impeachment committee are cited separately because they perform distinct constitutional functions and bear separate legal responsibilities in these proceedings.”

The EFF said it found it “absurd” that Didiza relied on a legal opinion that was not meant for her office to arrive at the decision not to oppose the interdict, ignoring the one for her office which said she should oppose.

“More damning is that the legal opinion specifically prepared for the speaker explicitly recommended that she oppose the application because she carries a constitutional duty to defend parliament’s authority and ensure accountability,” said the EFF.

The party’s statement comes just days after Didiza wrote to the Western Cape High Court informing it that her office would abide by the ruling of the court and she would not file opposing papers.

This decision has been the subject of much criticism from opposition parties who argued that she ignored a legal opinion that was clear that she should oppose Ramaphosa’s interdict.

DA parliamentary leader George Michalakis on Monday also criticised Didiza’s decision, saying it was “deeply troubling”, especially because the impeachment committee was not empowered to directly incur legal costs, thus relying on the speaker’s office for legal challenges.

“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,” said Michalakis.

“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.”

All these developments, said Michalakis, raised concerns about Didiza’s independence as the speaker of the National Assembly.

“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,” he said.

“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.”

TimesLIVE