Facts on the Speaker’s Implementation of the Constitutional Court Judgment

To download the soundbite of Parliament Spokesperson: Mr Moloto Mothapo click here: https://www.iono.fm/e/1690126

Parliament, Friday, 26 June 2026 - The Speaker of the National Assembly, Ms Thoko Didiza, has noted with concern the campaign of misinformation, selective interpretation of facts and deliberate attempts to portray her implementation of the Constitutional Court judgment on the Section 89 process as being inconsistent with the work of the Impeachment Committee.

That narrative is demonstrably false and the record speaks for itself.

From the moment the Constitutional Court handed down its judgment, the Speaker acted immediately and without delay to implement every aspect of the Court's order. She constituted the Impeachment Committee, formally referred the Independent Panel Report to it, referred the judgment for the review of the National Assembly Rules, determined the programme and institutional arrangements necessary for the Committee's work, ensured that Parliament provided the Committee with the legal, procedural and administrative support it required, and has consistently ensured Parliament's compliance with the Constitutional Court judgment.

Far from weakening the Committee, the Speaker strengthened it.

Although not obliged to do so, the Speaker departed from a strict mathematical application of proportional representation to ensure that all 16 political parties represented in the National Assembly were afforded representation on the Committee. The result was a 31-member Committee-one of the largest parliamentary committees constituted since the advent of democracy-thereby strengthening inclusivity, legitimacy and public confidence in the process.

The Speaker has equally protected the Committee's institutional integrity throughout its work. When calls were made to exclude certain Members of the Committee on allegations that they were not fit and proper to participate, the Speaker upheld the Rules of the National Assembly and defended the right of duly appointed Members to serve unless and until there existed a lawful basis to determine otherwise. The Speaker's responsibility has been to protect the integrity of parliamentary processes, not to determine outcomes based on political pressure.

The suggestion that the Speaker has failed to support the work of the Impeachment Committee is irreconcilable with the facts.

Before approaching the Court, the President's legal representatives requested the Speaker to suspend the work of the Impeachment Committee pending the outcome of the litigation. The Speaker unequivocally declined that request. She did so because the Constitutional Court had directed that the Section 89 process must proceed and because, once the Independent Panel Report had been referred to the Committee, the Rules of the National Assembly required that the Committee be permitted to exercise its mandate independently and without interference.

Had the Speaker wished to halt, frustrate or undermine the Committee's work, she had the opportunity to do so. She refused.

It is therefore difficult to reconcile the allegation that the Speaker is somehow opposed to the Committee's work with the undisputed fact that she refused to accede to the very request that would have brought that work to a standstill.
Equally misleading are claims that the Speaker ignored legal advice.

Much of this criticism has been fuelled by selective references to portions of a leaked legal opinion. A legal opinion is precisely that-an opinion. It is not a court order, nor is it binding on the decision-maker. Legal opinions are sought to identify legal issues, present options and inform decision-making. They do not make decisions.

The Speaker considered the legal advice received together with other constitutional, legal, procedural and institutional considerations before exercising the independent judgment entrusted to her by the Constitution. To suggest that the Speaker was obliged to adopt one particular option contained in legal opinions is to fundamentally misunderstand both the nature of legal advice and the constitutional responsibilities of a presiding officer.

Assertions that the Speaker's decision to file a notice to abide places her at odds with the Impeachment Committee are equally misplaced.

The Impeachment Committee and the Speaker perform different constitutional functions within the same Section 89 process. The Committee, as the body seized with the inquiry, has elected to oppose the President's application because it directly affects its mandate. The Speaker, on the other hand, has elected to file a notice to abide accompanied by an explanatory affidavit that places before the Court Parliament's constitutional obligations, the extensive steps already taken to implement the Constitutional Court judgment, and the broader constitutional and institutional context relevant to the matter.

These are not competing positions. They are complementary and mutually reinforcing legal approaches that reflect the distinct constitutional responsibilities of the Speaker and the Impeachment Committee. Together, they provide the Court with a comprehensive understanding of Parliament's constitutional obligations and its commitment to ensuring that the Constitutional Court's judgment is implemented in full.

The Speaker has also noted the submission of a proposed motion of no confidence. In terms of the Rules of the National Assembly, every proposed motion must first satisfy the applicable procedural requirements before it may proceed through the parliamentary process. The proposal will therefore be dealt with strictly in accordance with the Rules. However, the factual allegations advanced in support of the proposed motion are demonstrably contradicted by the Speaker's consistent actions in implementing the Constitutional Court's judgment, protecting the independence of the Impeachment Committee, and ensuring that Parliament fulfilled its constitutional obligations.

ISSUED BY THE PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Enquiries: Moloto Mothapo, Parliament Spokesperson