The Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, Annelie Lotriet, has confirmed that the Economic Freedom Fighter’s (EFF) motion of no confidence in the Speaker of the National Assembly, Thoko Didiza, is substantively in order and has acceded to its tabling, subject to minor procedural amendments.

The motion, in the name of EFF President and Commander-in-Chief Julius Sello Malema, will now proceed in accordance with the Rules of the National Assembly.

“The Secretary to the National Assembly has submitted your letter dated 26 June 2026 attaching the notice of a motion for the removal of the Speaker from office in terms of Rule 28 read with section 52(4) of the Constitution to me for consideration to be placed on the Order Paper.

“Rule 28(2) states that a motion for the removal of the Speaker from office must comply, to the satisfaction of the Deputy Speaker, with the prescripts of any relevant law or any relevant rules and orders of the House and directives and guidelines approved by the Rules Committee before being placed on the Order Paper. The Guidelines for Removal from office of Speaker or Deputy Speaker, which were published in the ATC of 25 November 2016, state that the notice of motion to remove the Speaker or Deputy Speaker must comply with the rules generally and those on notices of motion and may not contain statements, arguments or other matters not strictly necessary to make the proposed resolution intelligible,” it reads.

It said after careful consideration, I am satisfied that the motion in the name of Mr Julius Malema, MP is substantively in order and complies – except for a few procedural amendments, including those detailed below, and which the National Assembly Table will assist with – in the main with the relevant rules and guidelines.

“Your request to table the motion for consideration by the House has subsequently been acceded to subject to addressing the compliance issues I refer to below. The Guidelines inter alia require that the motion must comply with Rule 85 if the notice of motion relates to the removal of the Speaker or Deputy Speaker for alleged improper or unethical conduct. Rule 85(2) states that a member who wishes to bring any improper or unethical conduct on the part of another member to the attention of the House, may do so only by way of a separate substantive motion, comprising a clearly formulated and properly substantiated charge that in the opinion of the (Deputy) Speaker prima facie warrants consideration by the House,” it reads.
Lorient said it was in her view that the motion contains paragraphs with statements and allegations that must be considered in line with the provisions of Rule 85(2) and may therefore require substantiation, or removal in the absence of sufficient evidence.
The paragraphs of particular concern include 2(d) and (e).