National Assembly Speaker Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula has missed the deadline she gave herself for a decision on whether to set up a committee to probe allegations against President Cyril Ramaphosa.

During previous communication with African Transformation Movement (ATM) president Vuyolwethu Zungula, Mapisa-Nqakula undertook to reconsider the party's push for an investigation into the claims against Ramaphosa, which stem from a theft at his Phala Phala farm in Limpopo.

She said she would decide by August.

But on Wednesday, her office announced that due to unexplained delays, she would need more time to consider whether the motion to establish a Section 89 inquiry was successful or not.

"The previous correspondence on the subject refers. I can inform you that the matter of your motion, submitted in terms of Section 89 of the Constitution, continues to receive the attention of the speaker. Regrettably, while a decision on the matter was initially expected by Tuesday, 2 August 2022, there has been a delay," her secretary, Masibulele Xaso, wrote to Zungula.

Three weeks ago, Mapisa-Nqakula rejected Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen's plea for an ad hoc committee to investigate the allegations, saying that some of the proposed tasks were still within the purview of other entities or institutions, including law enforcement agencies. Parliament's attention might only be necessary at a later stage, she said.

Steenhuisen said the refusal to establish an ad hoc committee was a deliberate move to shield the president from accountability.

The DA said it would consider its legal options.

Last month, the ATM approached Mapisa-Nqakula. It argued that there was overwhelming prima facie evidence against Ramaphosa of constitutional violations as contemplated in Section 89 of the Constitution.

"It is common cause that [former spy boss] Mr Arthur Fraser has submitted evidence at the Rosebank police station where the president is implicated in serious crimes, including bribery; money laundering; kidnapping; breaching of customs and excise laws; breaching of SARS regulations; breaching the Prevention of Organised Crime Act; defeating the ends of justice, to mention but a few," it said in its submission.

The ATM was adamant that it was unclear how finality would be reached, given that the heads of the institutions that have to investigate the allegations were Ramaphosa appointees. The ATM believes Parliament must hold him accountable. 

The ATM also contended that the president violated Section 83(b) of the Constitution, which enjoins him, as head of state, to uphold, defend and respect the Constitution as the supreme law of the republic. 

The party also argued that Ramaphosa violated Section 96(2)(a) of the Constitution, which states that Cabinet members and deputy ministers may not "undertake any other paid work".