CAPE TOWN, Western Cape — ANC MP Cameron Dugmore has strongly defended National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza following the decisive defeat of the EFF’s motion of no confidence against her. Speaking on the outcome, Dugmore emphasized that the rejection of the motion by over 70% of members of parliament demonstrates widespread respect for the Speaker, while accusing the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) of allowing theatrics and unruliness to cost them vital political support.
Dugmore expressed full confidence in Speaker Thoko Didiza, stating she has proven herself to be an impartial and objective leader who manages parliament effectively. He noted that the arguments made by the majority of members against the EFF’s motion were strong, leading directly to its defeat.
Addressing the complexities of multi-party politics, Dugmore clarified the distinction between the executive and legislative branches under the current political arrangement. He explained that while South Africa has a Government of National Unity (GNU) bound by a clear, signed memorandum of understanding, there is no “parliament of national unity.” Consequently, every motion, resolution, bill, or piece of draft law requires active engagement and negotiation.
This engagement was precisely what occurred regarding the EFF’s motion, which alleged that Didiza had “sold out” and failed to defend parliament concerning the Section 89 impeachment process. Dugmore dismissed this as a frivolous argument. He pointed out that the Speaker strictly followed the Constitutional Court’s directive by setting up the impeachment committee. It was that independent committee of 31 members that subsequently decided to oppose the Cape High Court judgment. By abiding by the court’s processes, Didiza avoided undermining parliament and successfully kept her office above the political fray.
Dugmore highlighted that both GNU and non-GNU parties were consulted and ultimately voted against the EFF motion, further vindicating the Speaker’s position.
When confronted with claims from opponents that Didiza ignored initial advice to oppose an interdict and instead sought outside legal opinions allegedly linked to ANC firms, Dugmore pushed back firmly. He argued that while legal opinions are studied and considered, the Speaker holds an overriding responsibility to do what she believes is best to preserve the independence of parliament. He reiterated that the 31-member impeachment committee was properly seized with the decision of whether to oppose or appeal a judgment. Didiza’s choice to accept the committee’s authority proved to be the correct path, ensuring public money and legal processes were not misused to shield the president, but rather to uphold parliamentary independence.
The discussion also touched on the procedural debate over whether the parliamentary sitting should be held in person or virtually. The EFF fought hard for an in-person session, arguing that virtual sittings diminish the seriousness of the moment. When questioned about the ANC’s push for a virtual sitting—despite claims that members needed to be on the ground for campaign work, and after it was noted that political figure Carl Niehaus was recently seen in Woodstock—Dugmore deflected with a sharp quip, wondering aloud if Carl Niehaus was still running an “MKP spy operation on behalf of the EFF.”
Returning to a serious tone, Dugmore concluded that all parties agree parliament’s work must continue during an election period, but affirmed that conducting these sessions virtually remains the most appropriate and practical approach for the current political climate.