The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party has moved inside Parliament’s impeachment committee for Speaker Thoko Didiza to be subpoenaed over her decision not to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s application to halt the Phala Phala inquiry.
MK Party parliamentary leader John Hlophe said Didiza should be compelled to explain why she allegedly ignored legal advice that Parliament should oppose Ramaphosa’s court application.
Didiza called to explain why she ignored legal advice
“She must come and explain before the impeachment committee why she ignored sound legal advice and acted contrary to it,” Hlophe said.
Rule 167 allows a parliamentary committee to summon a person to appear before it, give evidence or produce documents. The impeachment committee must decide whether to invoke the rule and subpoena Didiza.
Hlophe said the committee met on June 18 and resolved that its chairperson, Makashule Gana, should file an affidavit opposing Ramaphosa’s application.
“This was based on legal advice obtained from senior counsel,” he said.
Didiza instead filed a notice to abide, meaning she would not oppose the application and would accept the court’s decision.
Hlophe alleged that Didiza later approached another legal team and obtained advice supporting the position she had already taken.
“Note the sequence of events,” he said.
“The Speaker ignored that advice and decided to file a notice to abide. She then, in the afternoon on the same day, approached attorneys to justify her actions already taken.”
Hlophe added: “She acted first and thereafter sought advice to justify her improper conduct.”
Didiza’s decision vs committee’s
The committee’s decision to oppose the application and Didiza’s decision to abide have now become central to the dispute.
The MK Party wants Didiza to explain when she received the legal opinions, what advice was given to her and why she did not follow the position adopted by the committee.
“We believe that the Speaker acted improperly, and therefore she must be subpoenaed to explain why she ignored advice and acted contrary to it,” Hlophe said.
Ramaphosa approached the Western Cape High Court seeking an interdict stopping the impeachment committee from continuing its work pending a review application expected to be heard in September.
Hlophe accused Ramaphosa of trying to delay the inquiry.
“We submit Ramaphosa is wasting time. You cannot interdict an inquiry which has already been directed by the apex court,” he said.
“The Constitutional Court is the final court of appeal in the land. There is no further appeal once it makes a ruling.”
Motion of no-confidence
The impeachment process follows litigation brought by the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and African Transformation Movement (ATM) after the National Assembly voted against adopting the report of the independent Section 89 panel that considered the Phala Phala matter.
The panel found that Ramaphosa may have a case to answer over the foreign currency kept at his farm and recommended further investigation.
The MK Party is also supporting the EFF’s motion of no confidence in Didiza.
“The EFF has filed a motion, a vote of no confidence against the Speaker,” Hlophe said.
“We supported that motion. It is yet to be tabled by the Speaker.”
Hlophe said MK Party’s proposal to subpoena Didiza was supported by UAT, ATM and other opposition parties represented in the committee.
ALSO READ: Analysis: Who blinks first? Ramaphosa, Parliament and the constitutional showdown
- The MK Party wants Speaker Thoko Didiza subpoenaed by Parliament’s impeachment committee for not opposing President Ramaphosa’s court application to halt the Phala Phala inquiry.
- MK Party leader John Hlophe claims Didiza ignored legal advice urging resistance to Ramaphosa’s application and instead filed a notice to abide, accepting the court's decision.
- The impeachment committee must decide whether to invoke Rule 167 to compel Didiza’s appearance and explanation for acting against the committee’s agreed legal position.
- Ramaphosa is seeking a court interdict to pause the impeachment inquiry, accused by MK Party of delaying the process despite a Constitutional Court ruling.
- The impeachment stems from findings that Ramaphosa may have a case to answer regarding foreign currency at his farm, with the MK Party also backing the EFF’s pending no-confidence motion against Didiza.
