Julius Malema seeks Didiza’s removal over Phala Phala after the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) tabled a motion in Parliament calling for the removal of National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza over her handling of the Section 89 impeachment proceedings involving President Cyril Ramaphosa.

The motion, submitted to Deputy Speaker Annelie Lotriet, marks another escalation in the political battle surrounding the Phala Phala matter. The EFF argues that Didiza failed to uphold Parliament’s constitutional obligations by not opposing legal action aimed at halting the impeachment process.

The move comes as political parties continue debating Parliament’s role in ensuring executive accountability while balancing constitutional duties and judicial oversight.

EFF tables motion against Speaker Thoko Didiza

The EFF formally submitted its motion on Friday through party national chairperson and chief whip Nontando Nolutshungu.

According to Nolutshungu, the allegations against Didiza are serious enough to warrant urgent parliamentary consideration.

She said the motion, brought in the name of EFF president Julius Malema, should be prioritised because of its constitutional significance.

The motion accuses Didiza of failing to protect Parliament’s authority during what the EFF describes as one of South Africa’s most important constitutional accountability processes.

Why Julius Malema wants Didiza removed

EFF raises concerns over the Phala Phala impeachment

At the centre of the dispute is the ongoing Phala Phala impeachment process involving President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Malema argues that Didiza failed to oppose Ramaphosa’s urgent court application seeking to interdict the work of Parliament’s Impeachment Committee.

According to the EFF leader, Parliament should have actively defended the independence of the Section 89 impeachment process instead of allowing legal proceedings to continue without institutional opposition.

Malema believes the Speaker placed political considerations above her constitutional responsibility to defend Parliament.

Allegations regarding legal advice

Another major point raised in the motion concerns legal advice obtained by the Speaker.

According to Malema, Didiza ignored advice recommending Parliament oppose litigation challenging the impeachment proceedings.

The motion further alleges that Didiza later sought additional legal opinions to justify decisions that had already been taken.

The EFF also questioned the independence of one of the law firms consulted, claiming its links to a former ANC treasurer-general created concerns about impartiality.

While these claims form part of the EFF’s motion, they remain political allegations that Parliament will ultimately have to consider.

Background to the Section 89 impeachment process

The Section 89 impeachment process stems from constitutional provisions allowing Parliament to remove a president under specific circumstances, including serious misconduct or violations of the Constitution.

The current process relates to allegations surrounding the Phala Phala farm controversy, where large sums of foreign currency were reportedly stolen from President Ramaphosa’s private game farm.

The issue has generated years of political debate, legal challenges and parliamentary scrutiny.

Parliament established an Impeachment Committee after constitutional processes required further investigation into whether grounds existed for impeachment proceedings.

Since then, legal disputes over Parliament’s procedures have intensified.

Didiza defends her position

Speaker Thoko Didiza has consistently defended her handling of the matter.

Rather than filing papers opposing Ramaphosa’s urgent court application directly, she submitted an explanatory affidavit alongside the Impeachment Committee’s opposing documents.

According to Didiza, the affidavit was intended to explain Parliament’s constitutional responsibilities and assist the court in understanding why the impeachment process should continue.

She has maintained that her actions complied with constitutional obligations while respecting the separation of powers.

Parliament responds to criticism

Parliament spokesperson Moloto Mothapo previously defended the Speaker’s conduct.

According to Parliament, the explanatory affidavit supported the work of the Impeachment Committee and aligned with Constitutional Court judgments governing Parliament’s responsibilities.

Officials argue that Didiza acted within her constitutional mandate while ensuring Parliament fulfilled its legal obligations.

However, opposition parties remain unconvinced.

Opposition parties question Didiza’s impartiality

Several opposition parties have criticised the Speaker’s decision not to directly oppose Ramaphosa’s legal application.

The EFF believes Parliament should have taken a much stronger position to defend its institutional authority.

Malema argues that Parliament’s credibility depends on demonstrating complete independence during constitutional oversight processes.

He claims that failure to do so weakens accountability mechanisms established under the Constitution.

These criticisms have become central to the broader debate over the National Assembly Speaker removal motion.

Call for Deputy Speaker oversight

Even before submitting the motion seeking Didiza’s removal, the EFF proposed transferring oversight of the impeachment proceedings to Deputy Speaker Annelie Lotriet.

Speaking outside an Impeachment Committee meeting, Malema argued that Didiza’s previous decisions created an unavoidable conflict of interest.

According to him, oversight should instead be managed by the Deputy Speaker to preserve public confidence in Parliament’s work.

“Our Speaker is highly conflicted,” Malema said while explaining the EFF’s proposal.

The party believes independent oversight would strengthen confidence in the constitutional process.

Constitutional accountability at the centre of debate

Parliament’s oversight role

The dispute extends beyond individual political figures.

It raises broader constitutional questions about Parliament’s responsibility to hold the executive accountable.

South Africa’s Constitution grants Parliament oversight powers designed to ensure transparency, accountability and democratic governance.

Supporters of the EFF’s position argue Parliament must actively defend these powers whenever challenged.

Others maintain that Parliament should avoid becoming directly involved in litigation where constitutional processes remain before the courts.

Balancing politics and constitutional duties

The controversy also highlights the difficult balance between political leadership and constitutional obligations.

The Speaker occupies a unique position within Parliament, expected to manage proceedings fairly while remaining above partisan political disputes.

Critics argue Didiza failed to meet that expectation.

Supporters insist she acted responsibly by allowing legal processes to unfold while ensuring Parliament continued fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities.

The differing interpretations are likely to shape parliamentary debates in the coming weeks.

What happens next?

The motion submitted by the EFF will first need to be processed according to parliamentary procedures.

Should it proceed, Members of Parliament will debate whether Didiza should remain Speaker.

The governing ANC and opposition parties are expected to take sharply different positions.

The outcome could influence not only the leadership of Parliament but also public confidence in the ongoing Section 89 impeachment process.

Political analysts believe the debate may become one of Parliament’s most closely watched constitutional battles this year.

Broader political implications

The latest developments further intensify political tensions surrounding the Phala Phala matter.

The impeachment proceedings have already generated numerous legal challenges, political disputes and constitutional debates.

Malema’s latest move demonstrates the EFF’s determination to keep pressure on both President Ramaphosa and Parliament’s leadership.

Whether the motion succeeds remains uncertain, but it is likely to fuel further discussion about accountability, parliamentary independence and constitutional governance.

YOU MAY LIKE:

Ramaphosa Seeks to Block Phala Phala Impeachment Process

Ramaphosa files court papers to challenge Phala Phala report

Conclusion

The decision by the EFF to seek the removal of Speaker Thoko Didiza represents another significant chapter in South Africa’s ongoing Phala Phala controversy.

By arguing that Parliament failed to defend its constitutional authority during the impeachment process, Julius Malema has placed the Speaker’s leadership under renewed scrutiny.

As Parliament considers the motion, attention will remain focused on whether the institution can balance political disagreement with its constitutional responsibilities. Regardless of the outcome, the debate is expected to shape discussions around executive accountability, parliamentary independence and democratic oversight for months to come.

References from mainstream media