The African National Congress has rejected opposition demands for National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza to step aside during the Section 89 impeachment process against her. Chief Whip Mdumiseni Ntuli confirmed the ruling party's position on Thursday, stating the ANC sees no basis for the Speaker to recuse herself from presiding over her own removal proceedings. The decision sets up a direct confrontation with opposition parties who argue the arrangement violates parliamentary precedent and basic principles of natural justice.
Section 89 and the Constitutional Framework
Section 89 of the South African Constitution provides the legal mechanism for removing the President or other senior officials from office. The provision requires a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, meaning at least 267 of 400 MPs must vote in favour. Unlike ordinary votes, impeachment proceedings carry significant political weight and require strict procedural adherence. Legal experts have long debated whether a presiding officer can remain neutral when they are the subject of the proceedings themselves.
Parliament's rules currently allow the Speaker to delegate chairing duties to another member during sensitive votes. However, critics contend that temporary delegation does not address the fundamental conflict of interest. The ANC's stance effectively forces opposition parties to continue their campaign for recusal or proceed under conditions they consider constitutionally problematic.
The ANC's Position
Ntuli, speaking at a media briefing in Cape Town, dismissed opposition arguments as politically motivated. "The Speaker has not been convicted of anything," he told reporters. "The ANC has full confidence in her ability to discharge her duties impartially until such time as a finding is made against her." The Chief Whip added that the party had reviewed parliamentary precedent and found no requirement for recusal at this stage of proceedings.
The ANC's unity on this matter signals the party's determination to control the trajectory of the proceedings. With 230 seats in the 400-member legislature, the ruling party lacks the numbers to remove Didiza on its own. However, blocking opposition efforts to force her recusal demonstrates the ANC's intent to shape how the process unfolds rather than who oversees it.
Opposition Response
The Democratic Alliance, the largest opposition party, immediately condemned the ANC's decision. The party's justice spokesperson accused the ruling party of treating Parliament as an extension of its own internal structures rather than an independent institution. "This is not about confidence in the Speaker," the spokesperson said. "This is about respecting the constitutional architecture that separates the accused from the adjudicator."
The Economic Freedom Fighters have gone further, threatening to approach the Constitutional Court if the proceedings continue without Didiza's recusal. Party leader Julius Malema argued that allowing the Speaker to oversee her own impeachment trial sets a dangerous precedent that could be exploited by future governments. Smaller parties have largely aligned with the DA and EFF, creating an unusual coalition united by procedural concerns rather than shared ideology.
Historical Context and Precedent
South Africa has never removed a sitting Speaker through impeachment, making this case unprecedented in the country's 30-year democratic history. The closest historical parallel involves former Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane, whose removal proceedings were plagued by similar controversies over procedural fairness. Parliament ultimately removed Mkhwebane from office in 2023 after the Constitutional Court found she had violated the Constitution.
Legal scholars have pointed to parliamentary traditions in other Commonwealth nations as potential guidance. In the United Kingdom, the Speaker traditionally does not participate in proceedings affecting their own position. However, South Africa's codified Constitution differs significantly from Britain's unwritten conventions, leaving room for competing interpretations.
What Happens Next
The impeachment process moves to its next phase next week, when the National Assembly's portfolio committee on justice will begin hearing evidence. Didiza is expected to present her response to the allegations against her during closed-door sessions. The committee has 30 days to complete its work before reporting to the full chamber.
If the committee recommends impeachment, the matter proceeds to a special vote requiring support from two-thirds of all MPs. Even if that threshold is reached, the President would need to ratify the removal, adding another layer of political complexity. The ANC's decision to back Didiza publicly suggests the party is prepared to see this process through to its conclusion, regardless of the political cost.
Smaller parties have largely aligned with the DA and EFF, creating an unusual coalition united by procedural concerns rather than shared ideology. However, South Africa's codified Constitution differs significantly from Britain's unwritten conventions, leaving room for competing interpretations.
