Former ANC treasurer-general and legal expert Dr Mathews Phosa has leapt to the defence of National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza’s decision to file a notice to abide by legal proceedings instituted by President Cyril Ramaphosa.
Phosa described recent public criticism linked to Didiza’s decision as based on a misunderstanding of constitutional roles and legal procedure.
In an intervention aimed at clarifying the issue, Phosa argues that Didiza’s decision reflects a proper and legally sound appreciation of her office and responsibilities, rather than political alignment or abdication of duty.
At the centre of the controversy is the meaning of a “notice to abide” – a legal step that has been widely mischaracterised in public discourse, he said.
Contrary to claims that the speaker’s stance amounts to support for the president’s case, Phosa emphasises that the move simply indicates a willingness to accept the court’s decision without actively participating in litigation.
Notice not endorsement
“A notice to abide is not an endorsement of the relief sought by an applicant. Nor is it an expression of support for the merits of a case,” Phosa said. “It simply means that the party concerned will abide by the decision of the court and will not actively participate in the litigation.”
Phosa contends that the real constitutional question is not whether the speaker should take a position on the merits of the president’s application but whether her office is the appropriate entity to oppose it in the first place. On this point, he is unequivocal.
“In my considered view, she is not,” he said.
The matter stems from the Section 89 impeachment process, in which the speaker’s role is largely administrative — ensuring that Parliament fulfils its constitutional obligations by establishing the relevant committee and enabling its work. Once constituted, however, that committee operates independently.
According to Phosa, parliamentary committees derive their authority directly from the Constitution and the Rules of the National Assembly and are not subject to the Speaker’s day-to-day control in exercising their substantive functions.
This distinction is crucial, he argues, particularly in the context of legal proceedings involving the powers and operations of such a committee.
“Where litigation concerns the powers, functions, or continued operation of a parliamentary committee, it is ordinarily that committee which is best placed to defend its constitutional mandate before the courts,” Phosa explained.
He notes that the Section 89 Committee has already resolved to oppose the president’s application and is actively defending its authority — making any separate opposition by the speaker potentially redundant.
Speaker is acting fairly
Beyond questions of legal efficiency, Phosa warns of the institutional risks of the Speaker entering the fray as an opposing party. The Office of the Speaker, he argues, occupies a uniquely sensitive position that requires strict impartiality.
“The Speaker is required to act fairly, impartially, and in a manner that preserves confidence in the integrity of Parliament’s processes,” he said.
“That responsibility includes respecting the autonomy of parliamentary committees and avoiding conduct that may create the perception that the Office of the Speaker has aligned itself with one side of a dispute.”
Phosa also addressed misconceptions about the nature of the president’s legal challenge, stressing that it is not an appeal against the Constitutional Court, whose rulings remain final and binding. Instead, the matter concerns the legality of the Independent Panel Report — an issue that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the courts.
In this context, Didiza’s decision to abide is neither passive nor political, but rather a reflection of constitutional restraint and institutional respect.
“The rule of law is not strengthened when every constitutional office-bearer is expected to oppose every application brought before a court,” Phosa said. “It is strengthened when each institution performs the role assigned to it by the Constitution and respects the roles assigned to others.”
Speaker’s role principled
Ultimately, Phosa maintains that the speaker’s approach is both principled and appropriate, preserving neutrality while allowing the directly affected body — the Section 89 Committee — to carry the legal burden.
“For these reasons, I remain of the considered view that the speaker’s decision to file a notice to abide was legally sound, constitutionally appropriate, and entirely consistent with the institutional responsibilities of her office,” he said.
“The speaker’s constitutional duty is not to take sides in every dispute. Her duty is to uphold the Constitution, protect the integrity of Parliament’s processes, and act within the limits of the powers entrusted to her office,” he concluded. “In this instance, she has done precisely that.”
- Former ANC treasurer-general and legal expert Dr Mathews Phosa has leapt to the defence of National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza’s decision to file a notice to abide by legal proceedings instituted by President Cyril Ramaphosa.
- Phosa described recent public criticism linked to Didiza’s decision as based on a misunderstanding of constitutional roles and legal procedure.
- In an intervention aimed at clarifying the issue, Phosa argues that Didiza’s decision reflects a proper and legally sound appreciation of her office and responsibilities, rather than political alignment or abdication of duty.
- At the centre of the controversy is the meaning of a “notice to abide” – a legal step that has been widely mischaracterised in public discourse, he said.
- Contrary to claims that the speaker’s stance amounts to support for the president’s case, Phosa emphasises that the move simply indicates a willingness to accept the court’s decision without actively participating in litigation.
Former ANC treasurer-general and legal expert Dr
Phosa described recent public criticism linked to Didiza's decision as based on a misunderstanding of constitutional roles and legal procedure.
In an intervention aimed at clarifying the issue, Phosa argues that Didiza’s decision reflects a proper and legally sound appreciation of her office and responsibilities, rather than political alignment or abdication of duty.
At the centre of the controversy is the meaning of a “notice to abide" – a legal step that has been widely mischaracterised in public discourse, he said.
Contrary to claims that the speaker's stance amounts to support for the president's case, Phosa emphasises that the move simply indicates a willingness to accept the court’s decision without actively participating in litigation.
“A notice to abide is not an endorsement of the relief sought by an applicant. Nor is it an expression of support for the merits of a case,” Phosa said. “It simply means that the party concerned will abide by the decision of the court and will not actively participate in the litigation.”
Phosa contends that the real constitutional question is not whether the speaker should take a position on the merits of the president's application but whether her office is the appropriate entity to oppose it in the first place. On this point, he is unequivocal.
“In my considered view, she is not,” he said.
“Where litigation concerns the powers, functions, or continued operation of a parliamentary committee, it is ordinarily that committee which is best placed to defend its constitutional mandate before the courts,” Phosa explained.
He notes that the Section 89 Committee has already resolved to oppose the president's application and is actively defending its authority — making any separate opposition by the speaker potentially redundant.
“
“
Phosa also addressed misconceptions about the nature of the president's legal challenge, stressing that it is not an appeal against the Constitutional Court, whose rulings remain final and binding. Instead, the matter concerns the legality of the
In this context, Didiza’s decision to abide is neither passive nor political, but rather a reflection of constitutional restraint and institutional respect.
“
Ultimately, Phosa maintains that the speaker’s approach is both principled and appropriate, preserving neutrality while allowing the directly affected body — the Section 89 Committee — to carry the legal burden.
“For these reasons, I remain of the considered view that the speaker’s decision to file a notice to abide was legally sound, constitutionally appropriate, and entirely consistent with the institutional responsibilities of her office,” he said.
“
