Speaker will not oppose Ramaphosa interdict application

National Assembly (NA) Speaker Thoko Didiza will not oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s application to interdict the Impeachment Committee, despite a legal opinion from the state law adviser that says it is her legal duty to do so. Didiza filed a notice to abide at the Western Cape High Court on Friday. News24 reports that the notice says that an explanatory affidavit will be filed on or before today. The legal opinion contends that, as the National Assembly is obliged to begin impeachment proceedings against Ramaphosa, so Didiza has a duty to ensure that the committee’s work proceeds. Says the opinion: ‘The Speaker is under a legal duty to ensure that the NA complies with its legal obligations. This necessitates opposition to an application which will have the effect of preventing the NA from complying with its obligations to act promptly in circumstances where the s89 impeachment process has been triggered.’ This places the Speaker at odds with the National Assembly’s Impeachment Committee, which last week decided to oppose Ramaphosa’s interdict. Die Burger reports that Ramaphosa backed Didiza on Saturday when he addressed journalists in Ekurhuleni in his capacity as ANC president. ‘She is independent. We are not influencing her in any way and that is where the separation of powers comes into play.’ Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said there is no contradiction in the stances taken by the Speaker and Impeachment Committee chairperson. He emphasised that Didiza will still file an explanatory affidavit. Mothapo said the contents of this affidavit is expected to be in accordance with the stance taken by Gana.

The legal opinion also argues that there is no guarantee that Ramaphosa’s interdict will succeed. It assigns a low probability of success, arguing that it fails to meet all four legal requirements for an interdict. However, if the interdict were to succeed, Parliament’s work would be delayed, possibly until 2027. In his interdict application, Ramaphosa argues that he is not seeking to prevent Parliament from exercising its powers and requires only a temporary pause in the process. The state law adviser says that this is doubtful. News24 reports that  the opposition ATM leader Vuyo Zungula, who brought the original motion for impeachment in the National Assembly in June 2022, has given notice that his party will oppose the interdict. Political parties are furious over Didiza’s decision, reports the Cape Times. The MKP rejected Didiza’s decision. ‘The MKP believes this decision is deeply concerning because it risks weakening Parliament’s constitutional duty to hold the executive accountable. The National Assembly has a responsibility to protect its processes and ensure that accountability mechanisms are not undermined. The party maintains that where Parliament’s own legal processes have produced advice supporting a particular course of action, any decision to depart from that position must be carefully justified and explained,’ it said. ‘Failure to do so creates concerns about the independence and credibility of Parliament.’ The Economic Freedom Fighters condemned her decision as ‘reckless, irrational and irresponsible’. ‘This decision is a shameful abdication of constitutional responsibility by the Speaker and goes against established precedent in defending the integrity and independence of Parliament as an arm of the state,’ the party said. Democratic Alliance spokesperson Jan de Villiers said the party believes the Constitutional Court has stated the committee must do its work and, ‘therefore, we support the legal opinion’ given to the committee, ‘that Parliament must oppose that application’. ActionSA expressed disappointment saying it reflected the ANC’s preference for ‘political protection over constitutional duty’.