Didiza’s decision to ‘abide’ with explanatory affidavit draws sharp criticism from parties

National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has come under fire after deciding not to oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa’s bid to interdict the Impeachment Committee and instead filing a notice to abide with an explanatory affidavit to accompany the committee’s opposition papers.

What Didiza decided and why

Parliament said the Speaker chose to file a notice to abide alongside an explanatory affidavit. Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said the affidavit is intended to help the court by clarifying “the National Assembly’s stringent constitutional obligations to proceed with and finalise the Section 89 proceedings.”

According to Mothapo, the content of the explanatory affidavit is “not only necessary but is entirely consistent with the respective roles and responsibilities of the Assembly versus those of the Impeachment Committee.” He said the affidavit will “actively assist the Court by placing before it the constitutional, legal and institutional considerations relevant to Parliament’s implementation of the Constitutional Court’s judgment and the discharge of its constitutional obligations.”

How parties reacted

Several political parties expressed strong objections to Didiza’s approach.

• The uMkhonto weSizwe Party said it “rejects Didiza’s decision” and argued the move “risks weakening Parliament’s constitutional duty to hold the executive accountable.” The party said failure to justify a departure from Parliament’s own legal advice “creates concerns about the independence and credibility of Parliament.”
• The Economic Freedom Fighters described the decision as “reckless, irrational, and irresponsible,” adding that “This decision is a shameful abdication of constitutional responsibility by the Speaker and goes against established precedent to defend the integrity and independence of Parliament as an arm of the state.”
• The African Transformation Movement (ATM) parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula said the party will oppose the President’s court bid, calling it an attempt to delay accountability.
• The DA said it believes the Constitutional Court has stated that the committee must do its work, and “therefore, we support the legal opinion” given to the committee “that Parliament must oppose that application”.
• ActionSA said it was deeply disappointed and accused the ANC of forcing the Speaker’s hand, saying the decision “undermines Parliament’s obligation to serve as a check on executive power.”

Background to the court challenge

President Ramaphosa filed papers in the Western Cape High Court on Friday, 12 June, seeking an interdict against Speaker Didiza and Impeachment Committee Chairperson Makashule Gana to prevent the committee from commencing the impeachment inquiry while his review application of the Independent Panel report is pending.

The source said a case management meeting chaired by Judge Nathan Erasmus was held on 4 June to set a timeline for the review of the independent panel’s report. Ramaphosa’s position is that the committee’s proceedings should be delayed until after his review application is heard in September.

The Impeachment Committee met this week and resolved to oppose the interdict application as a committee and to ask the Speaker to support that position. Committee Chairperson Makashule Gana subsequently approached the Speaker with the request that she oppose the President’s application.

Parliament’s view on consistency

Mothapo stressed that while the Speaker’s approach and the committee’s position are not identical, they are “neither inconsistent nor in conflict.” He described the two approaches as “complementary and mutually reinforcing” and reflective of distinct constitutional responsibilities within the Section 89 process.

What happens next

The committee has lodged its opposition and the Speaker has filed a notice to abide with an explanatory affidavit to accompany those papers. The matter remains before the Western Cape High Court as the parties press their legal arguments.