Deputy Speaker, in a damning judgement, the Constitutional Court found that Parliament had acted unlawfully in not holding the President to account for the Phala Phala scandal. In instructing Parliament to continue with the impeachment, it emphasised that the National Assembly’s oversight role over the President lies at the heart of our constitutional scheme.
The ACDP agrees, and on Monday 15 June 2026, following the President’s urgent application to interdict Parliament, wrote a letter to the Speaker, urging her to oppose the interdict, pointing out that this is an unprecedented impeachment process, and every step of the process must be carefully considered, given the obvious legal and political precedent it will create, as well as the significant public interest in the outcome.
Our view was supported by Senior Counsel Mokhara, who provided compelling reasons to oppose the interdict, concluding that the Impeachment Committee’s compliance with the ConCourt’s order was not optional, it was a legal and constitutional imperative.
These reasons, we believe, applied even more forcibly to the Speaker, where she, as primary guardian of Parliament, has to ensure that Parliament fulfils its constitutional duty of holding the President accountable.
One would then have expected her to stand side by side with the Impeachment Committee Chair in opposing the interdict. Instead, we saw a limp-wristed response to “abide the outcome”, obviously in response to political pressure. This we find deeply disappointing.
The Speaker, at great cost to Parliament, obtained her own Senior Counsel opinion from Advocate Pillay, advising her to oppose the interdict. Clearly not satisfied with this opinion, she then obtained a second opinion from a former ANC official, who obviously advised that she need not oppose the interdict. This at further cost to Parliament, yet many today find this totally acceptable.
We do not find it acceptable.
The Speaker then aggravated matters by saying publicly she was relying on the Committee’s legal opinion, not divulging her own Senior Counsel opinion to oppose the interdict. This amounts to misleading the people of South Africa.
Yet, this too, is acceptable to many today, but not acceptable to the ACDP.
This conduct represents, in our view, a dereliction of the constitutional duty to protect the independence of Parliament, particularly when dealing with this unique and very serious impeachment of the President.
The public are demanding answers to what happened at Phala Phala, but due to delaying, legal tactics have to date been prevented from learning the truth.
This, in our view, is plainly wrong.
By choosing political convenience over institutional defence, we believe that the Speaker has failed the test of impartiality.
For these reasons, the ACDP supports the motion of no confidence.
