Tshediso Mangope
Yesterday I attended the Branch Biennial General Meeting in my branch. I was expecting politics, but what I found instead was unapologetic vulgarity. At some point, decency packed its bags and divorced the chamber.
A woman stood up and announced, with tall confidence, that...
ANC veteran Dr Zweli Mkhize has warned against the use of money in influencing the outcome of the party's elective conferences, saying this will save the party from total collapse.
The former Health Minister and current Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs parliament portfolio committee chairperson lost to Cyril Ramaphosa in the presidential race in the 2022 elective conference.
The ANC will hold its elective conference next year.
In an exclusive interview on Monday, Mkhize said the meaningful renewal of the party will only be realised when the ANC conducts the election of leaders in a truthful, transparent and honest way. He said a leadership that came top without the use of money would have been truly elected by the people and would be able to command greater respect, warning that 'a leadership of money' would not be taken seriously by the people.
“When the leadership uses money to buy votes it means that under those circumstances you no longer have people that were elected, because there was a manipulation of process through the use of money. In a situation like that you should expect that that leadership will not be able to command respect and would not mobilise people to vote for the party. These issues are important to be corrected because if not, it will not matter how many times you talk about renewal,” said Mkhize.
Furthermore, he said that the leadership must listen and immediately act on the concerns of the people. He said the ANC is in dire straits because of leadership that forgets people after being elected to positions of power and serves their own interests.
“The concerns of ordinary people must find their expression in the way the ANC is being managed. The ANC must stay in touch with the people so that on a day to day basis, what leaders do reflects the concerns of the people on the ground. That is a fundamental issue. When people feel that the party is unable to address the issues of their concerns it means there is a challenge because people will feel there is distance between them and the party leadership.
"When people raise the issues of corruption, they need the ANC to act swiftly and correct that transparently and honestly,” said Mkhize.
He also complained about inconsistencies and arrogance of certain party leaders who failed to attend the issues of the parliamentary committee and deals with the committee in an acceptable way.
He cited an example of community leaders who failed to communicate with people on how financial challenges may be affecting the delivery of services.
He stated that people will have no problem understanding if issues like these are properly explained to them.
Last week Mkhize, the former KwaZulu-Natal ANC chairperson and the Premier, said he has not retired from politics.
As journalists, researchers and content creators continue to examine newly released US court documents linked to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, questions have emerged regarding the 'who, why and when' of the documents.
We look into why South Africa appears in some of the files and how frequently the country is referenced compared to others.
How often is South Africa mentioned in the Epstein files?
South Africa’s footprint in the files appears to be limited when compared with other countries.
Ireland, for example, appears more than 1,600 times in one analysed tranche of documents. This is largely due to legal, corporate and correspondence records.
The United States and United Kingdom also appear many times by volume, and this reflects Epstein’s residence, legal proceedings and primary social networks.
South Africa appears only sporadically, with no evidence so far of sustained correspondence or repeated operational activity linked to the country.
Why is South Africa mentioned in the files?
Reporting based on document excerpts shows that South Africa appears in the Epstein files for three primary, non-overlapping reasons. It is worth noting that none of these constitutes allegations of criminal activity in South Africa itself.
1. References to model scouting and travel
One set of emails contained in the released files refers to travel to South Africa, including Cape Town, in the context of international model scouting. The exchanges form part of broader communications around modelling agencies and talent placement, which appear frequently in Epstein-related records due to his long-documented involvement in elite social and modelling circles.
These references describe intended or past travel, not confirmed activities, and do not allege illegal conduct in South Africa.
2. A social event involving former President Jacob Zuma
South Africa is also mentioned in connection with emails arranging a private dinner in London in 2010 for then-President Jacob Zuma during an official overseas visit. The emails show logistical planning for the event and were authored by individuals linked to Epstein’s social network.
The correspondence does not allege or describe unlawful behaviour.
Furthermore, the Jacob Zuma Foundation has publicly rejected any suggestion of connection, stating that a reference in an email does not imply a relationship or wrongdoing.
3. South Africans employed abroad
A smaller number of references relate to South African nationals who worked on Epstein’s private island in the Caribbean. These mentions relate to employment history rather than criminal investigations.
What the mentions do (and do not) mean
A mention of a country or individual does not amount to an allegation, let alone proof of wrongdoing.
The files reflect Epstein’s global social reach, not criminal activity by every person or place referenced.
Many records are administrative, social or contextual, including diaries, travel discussions, event planning and third-party correspondence.
To date, no South African institution or authority has been implicated in the Epstein investigation, and no findings have suggested that crimes were committed in South Africa as part of Epstein’s operations.
EFF leader Julius Malema has proposed that wealthy South Africans should subsidise water and electricity for poor households, arguing that monthly payments for essential services are unaffordable for many.
Speaking at the EFF's second plenum, in Boksburg, Malema linked the proposal to South Africa's apartheid history and framed it as a matter of economic justice.
He compared the provision of basic services to the country’s education system, where poor children received free schooling.
“Paying monthly for water and electricity is not feasible for poor people,” Malema said, adding that such services should be subsidised.
“We need to make sure someone pays, and who is that someone? The rich must pay for the poor because the rich have stolen from the poor and it is time they pay back.”
In his address, Malema identified whom he believes should bear the cost.
“Who are the rich? The rich are the whites, the rich are the politicians, the businessmen who have left us in poverty in the townships. They must pay for those who are in the villages, and the townships who cannot afford,” he said.
Malema said his vision was for a country where wealthier citizens actively supported efforts to lift others out of poverty.
“We need a country where the rich must be fighting for the poor to come out of poverty, so that their payments can go low and those who were in poverty yesterday are now at a position where they too join the paying crew,” he said.
He also linked the proposed higher costs for affluent households to South Africa’s history of racial exclusion under apartheid.
“Through making the rich pay high water and electricity bills, they will be paying for the benefits they got during apartheid when we were excluded from benefiting from our own government,” Malema said.
Malema described the issue as central to the EFF’s political agenda.
“It’s an important discussion that we need to take up as the leadership of the EFF,” he said.
The Department of Health is urging parents to sign consent forms to allow their children to receive vaccinations protecting them from the Human Papillomavirus (HPV).
HPV is a group of viruses that cause infections and irritations on the surface of the skin.
The Health Department is launching its annual HPV vaccination drive on Monday, targeting schools across the country.
Spokesperson Foster Mohale said the vaccination will protect girls aged 9 years and older from developing cervical cancer later in life.
“Over 5,700 cases of cervical cancer are reported each year in the country, while more than 3,000 women die from cervical cancer-related complications. This means unvaccinated girls and women living with HIV are at a higher risk of serious health complications if develop cervical cancer later in life, compared to the general population.”
He’s asked parents to allow their children to receive school-based HPV vaccinations.
“The success of the campaign to protect girls from this preventable, yet deadly, disease hinges on stronger collaboration among all stakeholders, particularly parents and caregivers, who are required to complete the vaccination consent forms issued by schools to eligible girl learners.”
*This article was first published by Eye Witness News
Newly appointed National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP) Advocate Andy Mothibi has a tough task ahead of him as he takes office on Monday, as he will be faced with a number of cases that hang over from the Zondo, Mpati, and Nugent Commissions.
This is according to Accountability Now Director Advocate Paul Hoffman SC, who added that Mothibi will now also face possible prosecutions stemming from the Madlanga Commission.
But, Hoffman said, it is not legal for the National Prosecuting Authority to take these cases because it is not “a body outside executive control” that the law requires.
“Mothibi would be well advised to decline to prosecute corruption cases because they fall outside of the remit of the NPA and all other criminal justice bodies currently in existence".
Hoffman is of the opinion that this will prompt long overdue and necessary reform that does comply with the binding Constitutional Court judgment in the Glenister case and the “STIRS” requirements.
This acronym stands for Specialised, trained, independent, resourced in guaranteed fashion, and secure in tenure of office.
Hoffman said we currently do not have an operational and structural framework that effectively deals with the fraudsters and the corrupt in our midst.
He pointed out that international law, domesticated by South Africa, obliges the country to set up and maintain anti-corruption machinery of state that is independent in its operations and structure.
He pointed out that the Constitutional Court in the Glenister case found that “our law demands a body outside the executive control to deal effectively with corruption.”
Hoffman said no actual body answering to the STIRS criteria exists in South Africa, thus the need for the Madlanga Commission and others before it.
He pointed to the fact that the Constitutional Court ordered Parliament to create such a body by September 2011. “Parliament has not done so in any way, shape, or form. Instead, we have Hawks investigating, the SIU raking back loot, and the AFU seizing, freezing, and securing forfeiture of stolen assets, and the NPA prosecuting serious corruption".
Hoffman stressed that these are not independent bodies, as ordered by the Constitutional Court in its 2011 judgment.
As Shamila Batohi steps out of office after her seven-year tenure and Mothibi takes over as the new leader, several high-profile cases, some which stem from State Capture allegations, remain in various stages of investigation or prosecution.
Several accused linked to the Gupta network continue to face prosecution, while he will also have to deal with corruption-related cases involving former Eskom executives and former Speaker of Parliament Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula’s corruption charges.
While this is a lot to deal with, Mothibi’s first day in office is also expected to be marked by the serving of court papers challenging his appointment as the NDPP.
Law firm Barnabas Xulu & Partners Inc. indicated that it would serve Mothibi with its court challenge on Monday when he officially assumed the office of the NDPP.
In its court papers, Barnabas Xulu & Partners Inc. stated that the firm does not dispute Ramaphosa’s powers to appoint the NDPP in terms of the Constitution or impugn Mothibi’s suitability for the position.
“As per the founding affidavit, we persist with the allegation that the entire process of appointing the NDPP that culminated in the appointment of Advocate Mothibi is unlawful,” it said.
South Africa's decision to declare Israel's chargé d'affaires Ariel Seidman persona non grata has raised concerns that the country may face additional tariffs from the United States of America, Israel's ally.
This is according to Lesego Masisi, co-founder of Anti-Apartheid Movement for Palestine (SA chapter) led by Reverend Frank Chikane, who warned that Washington may resort to economic pressure on South Africa .
“They may also try to put pressure by applying coercive tactics to (President) Cyril Ramaphosa and the SA Government with the key strategic objective being the ‘voluntary’ withdrawal of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) case against Israel,” he said.
South Africa took Israel to the ICJ in December 2023, accusing Israel of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
Masisi said Pretoria's decision to expel Seidman was a necessary step to uphold international law after Seidman took David Saranga, a senior Israeli official, to visit AbaThembu King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo in the Eastern Cape without informing the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco).
Saranga donated food parcels to flood-affected residents during the visit, which was seen as a breach of diplomatic protocol.
"A reasonable top representative of a country should definitely know when they really have to consult with the host government before bringing in a senior delegation to visit a traditional leader," he said.
Israel retaliated by also declaring South Africa's senior diplomatic representative, Shaun Edward Byneveldt, persona non grata, giving him 72 hours to leave the country.
The country further accused South Africa of making "false attacks against Israel in the international arena” and taking “the unilateral, baseless step" against Seidman
Byneveldt, who is based in Ramallah, was accredited through Israel due to the country's occupation of the West Bank.
Masisi said: "Israel has attempted to reciprocate by creating the false impression that they are acting within their jurisdiction to expel the South African Ambassador to Palestine, Shaun Byneveldt, which is in fact acting ultra vires in terms of the basic rules of international law."
He said Israel’s perspectives have indefensibly demonstrated racial supremacy and blatant discrimination against the Palestinians.
"South Africans, through protracted mass mobilisation and human rights education, aim to raise a deep awareness of the gross human rights violations that continue to take place in Palestine," he said.
He explained that Israel's trade with South Africa is a significant aspect of its international relations, with South Africa being one of its largest trading partners in Africa.
Masisi also cautioned that US President Donald Trump's administration may expedite the process of removing South Africa from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and increase trade tariffs.
“This will affect American businesses operating in South Africa, which depend more on South Africa. This may create a trade and investment vacuum that will be quickly filled by other serious players in the international game, as the risk level of South Africa’s investment and trade climate is not internal, but intrinsically external,” he said.
Dirco spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said: “Mr Shaun Byneveldt is the ambassador to the State of Palestine, not Israel. Israel’s obstructionism forces a farcical arrangement where he is accredited through the very state that occupies his host country. This underscores Israel’s refusal to honour international consensus on Palestinian statehood.”
On Sunday, Phiri indicated that Pretoria’s current position on this matter remains as stated previously when asked to comment on Israel's decision to declare Byneveldt persona non grata.
He did not comment on whether Pretoria has any plans for further action or escalation, or whether the government is waiting for Israel to make the next move.
On Friday, Phiri said South Africa's "decisive measure follows a series of unacceptable violations of diplomatic norms and practice which pose a direct challenge to South Africa’s sovereignty".
He said the violations include the repeated use of official Israeli social media platforms to launch insulting attacks against Ramaphosa, and a deliberate failure to inform Dirco of purported visits by senior Israeli officials.
Meanwhile, the DA has criticised the South African government's decision to expel Israel's chargé d'affaires, with party spokesperson on International Relations and Cooperation, Ryan Smith, MP, saying diplomacy should be used to manage disputes without public escalation.
“Declaring a foreign diplomat persona non grata is among the most serious tools in a state’s diplomatic repertoire. It is typically reserved for espionage, security threats, or grave breaches of international law – not political disagreements conducted in the public sphere. When used impulsively, it signals instability rather than strength,” Smith said.
He slammed Dirco for failing to follow standard diplomatic protocol in its dispute with Israel, noting that the department did not issue a démarche to the Israeli embassy, a formal step to raise concerns and demand corrective action, before declaring Israel's chargé d'affaires persona non grata.
He stated that the current decision to engage in public diplomatic escalation, particularly in an already polarised international environment, risks retaliatory measures, strained commercial ties, and reduced investor confidence.
