National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has declined a request from African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyo Zungula to table a motion of no confidence against President Cyril Ramaphosa. The request, which stemmed from the ongoing Phala Phala scandal, was rejected following similar efforts by the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party to invoke Section 102 of the Constitution.
Legal Grounds for the Decision
In her formal response, Speaker Didiza cited Assembly Rule 129(2), which requires the Speaker to prioritize motions of no confidence while consulting with the Chief Whip and the Leader of Government Business. She further noted that under Rule 129(3), such motions must comply with House rules, relevant laws, and directives from the Rules Committee.
The Speaker determined that the motion’s grounds were already being addressed by the Assembly. This follows the Constitutional Court judgment in Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (2026) ZACC 17.
Didiza emphasized that the theft at the Phala Phala farm has already been referred to an impeachment committee for further inquiry. Under Rule 90, she stated that discussion of the matter should not be anticipated through other mechanisms while this process is underway.
Opposition Demands and Constitutional Rulings
The ATM and MK Party argued that recent events have undermined public trust in the president. The ATM specifically submitted a motion targeting both Ramaphosa and his Cabinet, claiming his continued tenure damages the integrity of the Office of the President.
The MK Party requested that any potential vote of no confidence be conducted via secret ballot to protect Members of Parliament from internal intimidation.
These requests followed a Constitutional Court ruling that found Parliament’s previous handling of the Phala Phala report was invalid and unconstitutional. The court overturned a December 2022 decision not to refer the matter to an impeachment committee and ruled that Assembly Rule 129I was unconstitutional.
Current Status and Potential Next Steps
President Ramaphosa has denied any wrongdoing, describing the Section 89 Independent Panel report—chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo—as “flawed.” He has consistently rejected calls from opposition parties to resign.
Moving forward, the President may seek to overturn the findings of the panel, as he has confirmed he will take the report on judicial review following legal advice. Meanwhile, Parliament is expected to establish the impeachment committee to conduct a full inquiry as ordered by the apex court.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did Speaker Thoko Didiza decline the motion of no confidence?
She declined the submission because the grounds for the motion are already being handled by the Assembly via an impeachment committee, as directed by the Constitutional Court. She also cited Rule 90, which prevents the anticipation of a matter already under inquiry.
What did the Constitutional Court rule regarding the Phala Phala report?
The court ruled that Parliament’s handling of the report was unconstitutional and invalid, specifically overturning the December 2022 decision not to refer the report to an impeachment committee. It also declared Rule 129I of the Assembly’s rules to be unconstitutional.
What is President Ramaphosa’s legal strategy regarding the panel report?
President Ramaphosa intends to take the Section 89 Independent Panel report on judicial review after receiving advice from his legal team.
Do you believe parliamentary committees or motions of no confidence are the more effective tool for ensuring executive accountability?