South Africa's Parliament Speaker Thokozile Didiza has confirmed she will not oppose President Cyril Ramaphosa's urgent court application to suspend the ongoing impeachment proceedings against him, Parliament announced on Sunday, 21 June. The move effectively means Parliament itself will not contest the President's bid to halt the inquiry.

What Ramaphosa Filed and Why

On 12 June, Ramaphosa filed an urgent application seeking to pause the Impeachment Committee's work while he pursues a judicial review of the independent panel report into the Phala Phala affair. In his court papers, he argued the proceedings should be suspended pending that review. Separately, on 26 May, the President had already approached the Western Cape High Court to review and set aside the panel's findings altogether.

Speaker's Stance and Parliament's Position

Didiza filed a notice on Friday stating she would abide by the Western Cape High Court's decision. Parliament confirmed on Sunday that this notice to abide would be filed alongside an explanatory affidavit to assist the court in its deliberations.

'Given the content of the explanatory affidavit, the Speaker believes that the stance adopted is not only necessary but is entirely consistent with the respective roles and responsibilities of the Assembly versus those of the Impeachment Committee,' Parliament said in its statement.

The Impeachment Committee's Contrasting Position

The development puts the Speaker at odds with the Impeachment Committee itself, which had said it would oppose Ramaphosa's urgent application. The committee had also formally asked Didiza to join it in contesting the President's bid — a request she has now declined. The split between the Speaker and the committee signals a significant institutional divergence within Parliament on how to handle the matter.

Background: Phala Phala and the Constitutional Court Ruling

The impeachment process was revived after South Africa's Constitutional Court ruled last month that Parliament had acted unlawfully when it rejected the independent panel's report in 2022. That panel, chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo, found prima facie evidence suggesting Ramaphosa may have committed serious misconduct in connection with the Phala Phala case.

The Phala Phala affair centres on the alleged theft of approximately $580,000 in cash from Ramaphosa's private game farm in Limpopo Province in 2020. Despite the panel's findings, the National Assembly voted against adopting the report and proceeding with impeachment at the time — a decision the Constitutional Court later deemed unlawful.

What Happens Next

With the Speaker declining to oppose and the Impeachment Committee standing firm in its resistance, the Western Cape High Court will now be the decisive arena. The court's ruling on Ramaphosa's urgent application will determine whether the impeachment inquiry continues or is paused pending a full judicial review. The outcome carries significant implications for South Africa's constitutional framework and the accountability of its executive.