The EFF has intensified its bid to remove National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, insisting that its motion of no confidence be placed before Parliament after submitting additional evidence aimed at satisfying procedural concerns raised by Deputy Speaker Annelie Lotriet.
In a letter on Tuesday, EFF parliamentary chief whip Nontando Nolutshungu replied to Lotriet’s request for more proof of two claims in the motion, saying the party had met the requirements set by Rule 85(2) of the National Assembly Rules.
The move marks the latest escalation in the EFF’s campaign against Didiza, which stems from her decision not to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s court application challenging Parliament’s impeachment process in the long-running Phala Phala saga.
The EFF informed Lotriet that documentary and publicly available evidence supported the allegations she questioned.
On one allegation, the party said it relied on a radio interview in which Didiza explained that her decision not to defend Parliament in court had been guided by legal advice.
The EFF argued that the interview supported its contention that the speaker created the impression that legal advice justified her decision.
On the second allegation, the party pointed Lotriet to a legal opinion from Phosa Loots Inc, saying the document showed the advice was given only after the decision was made.
“The two attachments speak for themselves and adequately substantiate the allegations in paragraphs 2(d) and 2(e). We are confident that the motion, as submitted, meets the threshold required under Rule 85(2) and request that it proceed to be placed on the Order Paper without further delay,” Nolutshungu wrote.
The letter was submitted a day after Lotriet informed the EFF that, while the proposed motion substantially complied with parliamentary rules, two allegations required further substantiation before the motion could proceed.
Lotriet confirmed that the motion mainly complied with constitutional and parliamentary requirements and agreed to table it, pending resolution of outstanding compliance issues.
However, she warned that motions that accused another member of wrongdoing must follow Rule 85(2), which stated that they needed to have a “clearly stated and well-supported accusation” that the speaker or deputy speaker believed was serious enough to be looked at by the House.
Lotriet specifically identified paragraphs 2(d) and 2(e) of the EFF motion as requiring either additional evidence or removal if sufficient proof could not be provided.
The motion forms part of the political fallout from Ramaphosa’s legal challenge to Parliament’s impeachment process.
The president approached the courts after an independent panel found there was prima facie evidence that he might have committed serious violations of the Constitution and the law in relation to the theft of foreign currency from his Phala Phala farm.
Parliament subsequently established an impeachment committee to consider the matter.
Didiza later chose not to challenge Ramaphosa’s request about parts of the parliamentary process, a choice that received strong criticism from opposition parties, especially the EFF, which said the speaker did not protect Parliament’s interests and authority.
The party contends that Didiza’s conduct undermined Parliament’s constitutional role and warrants her removal from office through a motion of no confidence.
- The EFF has intensified efforts to remove National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza by pushing for a motion of no confidence to be placed before Parliament, submitting additional evidence to address procedural concerns from Deputy Speaker Annelie Lotriet.
- EFF parliamentary chief whip Nontando Nolutshungu stated that their motion met the requirements of Rule 85(2), providing documentary proof and public evidence supporting two key allegations questioned by Lotriet.
- The motion criticizes Didiza for not opposing President Cyril Ramaphosa’s court application challenging Parliament’s impeachment process related to the Phala Phala saga, based on her alleged reliance on legal advice given after her decision.
- Deputy Speaker Lotriet indicated the motion mostly complied with constitutional requirements but demanded further substantiation for allegations in paragraphs 2(d) and 2(e), warning that unsupported claims needed to be removed.
- The dispute arises from Ramaphosa’s legal challenge against an impeachment process set up after findings of possible constitutional violations tied to the theft of foreign currency at his farm, with the EFF accusing Didiza of undermining Parliament by not defending its interests.
In a letter on Tuesday, EFF parliamentary chief whip
On one allegation, the party said it relied on a radio interview in which Didiza explained that her decision not to defend Parliament in court had been guided by legal advice.
On the second allegation, the party pointed Lotriet to a legal opinion from Phosa Loots Inc, saying the document showed the advice was given only after the decision was made.
"
Lotriet confirmed that the motion mainly complied with constitutional and parliamentary requirements and agreed to table it, pending resolution of outstanding compliance issues.
However, she warned that motions that accused another member of wrongdoing must follow Rule 85(2), which stated that they needed to have a “clearly stated and well-supported accusation” that the speaker or deputy speaker believed was serious enough to be looked at by the House.
Lotriet specifically identified paragraphs 2(d) and 2(e) of the EFF motion as requiring either additional evidence or removal if sufficient proof could not be provided.
Parliament subsequently established an impeachment committee to consider the matter.
Didiza later chose not to challenge Ramaphosa’s request about parts of the parliamentary process, a choice that received strong criticism from opposition parties, especially the EFF, which said the speaker did not protect Parliament's interests and authority.
