ATM Accuses National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza of Protecting Cyril Ramaphosa

PARLIAMENT, WESTERN CAPE—The African Transformation Movement (ATM) accused the Speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza, of shielding President Cyril Ramaphosa. Didiza declined a notice for a motion of no confidence against Ramaphosa after the Constitutional Court ruled that the Section 89 Panel report be referred to an impeachment committee earlier this month.

The ATM announced the decision on its X account after receiving a formal letter from Parliament dated 20 May 2026. According to the official communication, Zungula submitted the notice of motion in terms of Section 102(2) of the Constitution. Didiza cited Assembly Rule 129(3) and (4) for declining the submission, stating that the National Assembly is already dealing with the subject matter.

The letter noted that the Constitutional Court ordered the Phala Phala matter to be referred to the Section 89 Impeachment Committee. Didiza stated that, in accordance with Rule 90, the discussion of the matter should not be anticipated through another mechanism while the enquiry is underway.

Read also

Glynnis Breytenbach opens up after DA appoints her the party's Parliamentary chief whip

ATM accuses Speaker of protecting Ramaphosa

The party expressed its dissatisfaction with the decision on social media. It stated that his party is convinced that the Speaker is actively protecting the President. The ATM further added that Didiza has clearly not learned from the mistakes of her predecessor, Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula.

Read the X statement here:

ANC backs Cyril Ramaphosa in Phala Phala saga

In other news, Briefly News reported that the African National Congress’s highest decision-making body has officially drawn a line in the sand. In a tense, high-stakes special meeting—which President Cyril Ramaphosa was barred from attending—the ANC National Executive Committee made a definitive resolution on the explosive Phala Phala farm theft scandal.

With the Constitutional Court ruling that parliament acted unconstitutionally, and mounting public outrage demanding his immediate resignation, the party’s choice has left South Africans fiercely divided.

Source: Briefly News