Following the failed motion of no confidence against National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza, brought by the EFF, the ANC parliamentary caucus welcomed the vote outcome, characterising the EFF's motion as a “groundless attempt to disrupt parliamentary operations”.

The motion was rejected by 282 votes to 101, which the ANC said confirmed the National Assembly's confidence in Didiza.

“The motion brought by the EFF was nothing more than a calculated political gimmick designed to undermine democratic processes, generate media headlines and waste the valuable time of Parliament. At no point did the Speaker violate any law, standing rule, or constitutional obligation,” the party said.

The EFF’s motion alleged that Didiza acted “unfairly, partially, and in a partisan manner" regarding her procedural handling of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s legal interdict application.

In response, the ANC clarified that the Speaker exercised “sound legal judgment” and respected ongoing judicial processes to ensure the National Assembly operated strictly within the rule of law.

The party emphasised that since assuming office two years ago, Didiza has protected the institution by respecting court processes so that Parliament does not overreach or violate due process.

ActionSA joined the ANC in rejecting the motion, emphasising that its vote was a matter of constitutional principle rather than a blanket endorsement of the ANC-led Government of National Unity.

ActionSA national spokesperson Lerato Ngobeni stated that a motion of no confidence cannot become a routine parliamentary remedy whenever a political party disagrees with a Speaker's ruling.

She pointed out that removing a Speaker requires substantive grounds that demonstrate that they have fundamentally failed in the duties of the office, compromised the integrity of Parliament or become incapable of presiding over the House with the required impartiality.

“In this instance, we do not believe the EFF has established that case,” Ngobeni said.

She noted that while ActionSA has previously been critical of Didiza's handling of aspects of the Section 89 process concerning Ramaphosa, she said political criticism cannot be converted into grounds for removal merely out of convenience.

ActionSA concluded that Didiza has discharged her responsibilities with a “degree of restraint and institutional independence far exceeding her predecessors”.

RISE Mzansi national leader Songezo Zibi strongly critiqued the logic of the EFF's motion, arguing that it “unfairly” targeted an individual for decisions made collectively by parliamentary structures.

Zibi pointed out that the Impeachment Committee, not the Speaker, decided to oppose the review application.

Therefore, expecting the Speaker to dictate or ponder the committee's legal position suffers from a “fatal internal contradiction”.

He explained that the decision to not accommodate the President’s initial request belonged entirely to the Impeachment Committee.

He said no political parties objected when the Speaker routinely passed correspondence from the President directly to the Committee for its exclusive response.

He added that the Speaker has no legal role in the litigation decisions of independent parliamentary committees.