
Why a jihadist takeover of a Sahelian capital is unlikely
Insecurity has risen sharply in the Sahel in recent months. Between late May and early June, major attacks claimed by Jama'at Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JNIM) and the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) targeted various locations in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.
This resurgence underscores the two groups' adaptive capabilities and questions the efficacy of counterterrorism strategies implemented by the Alliance of Sahel States' (AES) military-led governments. Consequently, some analysts are concerned about the potential for a Sahelian capital to fall under jihadist control – drawing parallels to the December 2024 capture of Damascus by terror group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).
However, there are critical contextual distinctions between the two scenarios. Unlike HTS, which has consistently pursued regime change to position itself as a political-religious alternative, JNIM and ISGS show no intent to seize power in the capital cities of Bamako, Niamey or Ouagadougou.
Rather, their strategies emphasise the gradual erosion of state authority in rural peripheries where they mediate local conflicts, enforce norms and collect taxes. This underscores their comparatively limited operational capacity. JNIM and ISGS primarily operate in remote rural areas, using light weapons such as rifles, machine guns, rocket launchers and mortars. They also use motorcycles, improvised explosive devices and weaponised civilian drones.
Although they have taken and temporarily controlled towns in the interior, such as Djibo and Diapaga, they lack the firepower and logistical capabilities to sustain a prolonged siege and occupation of a major city. Their strength lies in mobility and local knowledge rather than the capacity to occupy and govern territory for long periods.
HTS, by contrast, developed a structured military force with centralised command and tactical units capable of coordinated assaults supported by drones and heavy artillery. The group had sustained access to sophisticated weaponry through well-organised transnational supply lines.
The fall of Damascus represented the culmination of a broader regime-change dynamic set in motion by the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings and bolstered, to varying degrees, by some Western and Gulf countries. For a while, HTS capitalised on key cross-border corridors – particularly with Turkey – that enabled the steady influx of foreign fighters, medical aid, munitions and advanced weapons systems.
No comparable geopolitical architecture exists in the Sahel. While weapons trafficking from Libya has strengthened some armed groups, there is no declared international effort aimed at toppling the governments of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.
Although AES leaders frequently accuse foreign actors – notably France – of supporting terrorism or destabilising the region, open-source data offers little evidence of this. Even Algeria, whose role in northern Mali has occasionally been ambivalent, has never sought to overthrow the government in Bamako.
Another point of distinction is the internal dynamics of state militaries. The fall of Aleppo, Hama, Homs and ultimately Damascus, occurred within just two weeks. This was primarily due to the limited resistance by the Syrian Army – weakened by a decade of conflicts, widespread defections and deteriorating living standards.
In contrast, the capabilities of armies in Sahelian countries are increasing. These militaries are ideologically and institutionally resistant to jihadists, perceiving them as existential threats to their respective governments. Furthermore, having assumed political power, AES military leaders have entrenched their authority within the state apparatus, bolstering their responsibility and accountability.
Also, the rise of HTS was enabled by the exhaustion of a war-weary Syrian population and economic collapse, further aggravated by international sanctions. Disillusioned by Bashar al-Assad's authoritarian regime, many Syrians viewed HTS as either a lesser evil or, in some cases, a more favourable alternative.
The Sahel situation is starkly different. Although hardline Islamist ideologies have found some traction in urban centres, public sentiment in the capital cities remains hostile towards jihadists who are perceived as instigators of violence, instability and national suffering.
For now, these factors together render the capture and sustained control of a Sahelian capital by jihadist forces improbable. JNIM and ISGS are likely to restrict themselves to guerrilla and destabilisation tactics.
As history shows, however, this does not make these cities immune to political instability linked to rising insecurity. The 2012 Mali coup was triggered by military setbacks in the north. Similarly, Burkina Faso's January 2022 coup occurred following a mutiny prompted by escalating casualties among security forces.
Considering the AES countries' protracted military transitions and constrained political environments, further upheavals leading to institutional breakdowns and a disorganisation of security forces cannot be ruled out. This could have unpredictable consequences for the Sahel and west Africa at large.
To avoid this, AES governments must acknowledge the strategic limitations of their militarised approach to terrorism. While increasing troop numbers and acquiring advanced weaponry have yielded some tactical successes, these measures haven't incapacitated the violent extremists. In 2024, the Sahel remained the world's epicentre for terrorism for the second consecutive year, accounting for half of all global casualties.
The youthful appearance of the assailants in the foiled 2 June Timbuktu attack should be a wake-up call to AES strategists. It reflects a generation of children deprived of schooling due to chronic insecurity, and whose families lack access to income, justice and essential social services. These factors are potent drivers of recruitment into armed groups – and cannot be solved through military means alone.
AES governments need a coherent, region-wide counterterrorism strategy that goes beyond military interventions. Valuable insights can be gleaned from the Lake Chad Basin's disengagement and reintegration programmes, Mauritania's religious dialogue initiatives, and Algeria's non-kinetic approach. Equally important is the need to engage with communities stigmatised by counterterrorism operations, fostering trust and reducing the risk of recruitment.
Enhanced relations with Algeria and the Economic Community of West African States could bolster regional cooperation and intelligence sharing, strengthening the collective capacity to reduce the threat posed by armed groups.
Without a meaningful recalibration of strategy, the Sahel could descend into prolonged fragmentation, with profound consequences for west Africa's stability. DM

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Five Truths in Lawfare and the Weaponisation of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal of Judge President Selby Mbenenge
Gillian Schutte unpacks the political, epistemic, and ideological weaponisation of the Judicial Conduct Tribunal of Judge President Selby Mbenenge. Image: IOL At a moment when South Africa finds itself midway through a soft coup engineered by elements within the GNU in alignment with Anglo-American geopolitical interests, and amid an intensified ideological war against Black epistemology and radical thought, Judge President Selby Mbenenge's Judicial Conduct Tribunal must be rigorously interrogated through a decolonial lens rather than through liberal spectacle. Marianne Thamm's characterisation in Daily Maverick - an intellectual title fight between "old patriarchs" and a gender-based violence expert - typifies precisely this liberal sock puppet journalism: sensationalist, reductive, and politically calculated. GroundUp had already set the ideological stage with its headline: "Expert defends sexual harassment finding against Judge President Mbenenge," published prematurely on the Tribunal's second morning. Its intent was clear: to shape public perception through donor-aligned feminist frameworks, implicitly dismissing African jurisprudence as regressive patriarchal relic. Critical analysis reveals deeper political dynamics hidden beneath this liberal narrative, which deliberately obscured why Lisa Vetten's partial, selectively translated testimony was nonetheless elevated as authoritative. Rather than examining the substantial influence of Western-aligned donors – USAID, Global Fund, NACOSA, Open Society, Ford Foundation, and the EU – in shaping Vetten's frameworks, GroundUp presented her findings as objectively neutral. Yet these donor bodies consistently privilege gender analyses neatly aligned with Western liberal policy prescriptions, marginalising radical feminist critiques that connect gender violence to structural inequality, capitalist extraction, and historical colonial violence. GroundUp's premature pronouncement was neither neutral nor coincidental. It aimed to attack African epistemic sovereignty, prevent critical inquiry, and consolidate ideological alignment with donor interests. This is exactly why we need to look beneath this carefully managed media spectacle – because it is there that lie five distinct truths, each deserving rigorous engagement without collapsing one into the other. Truth One: Andiswa Mengo's Testimony Court secretary Andiswa Mengo's testimony described a progression in communication from professional engagement to increasingly personal and late-night messages from Judge Mbenenge, culminating in the receipt of a photograph she experienced as invasive and inappropriate. Her account of discomfort, vulnerability, and disrupted professional dignity must be taken seriously. To dismiss her truth would be to re-enact the very violence that silences complainants across patriarchal institutions. However, belief in survivors must not be conflated with the abandonment of procedural integrity. Belief is not a substitute for evidence; it is a starting point for serious inquiry. Her version must be examined within a context that resists voyeuristic credulity or ideological utility. It must be subject to the same rigour expected of any legal process – through full context, linguistic nuance, and evidentiary completeness – not partial snippets or selective framing that serve to confirm media narratives or topple a judge without due process. In a case saturated with political and ideological stakes, it is all the more necessary to hold the space where belief and scrutiny coexist without collapsing one into the other. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Truth Two: Lisa Vetten's Donor-Aligned Authority Lisa Vetten's authority must be situated within the geopolitical architecture that funds and frames it. Her career has unfolded through institutions tethered to Washington's ideological and strategic interests – from the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, to Tshwaranang Legal Advocacy Centre, and into policy-shaping roles within USAID and Global Fund programmes. Her expertise, while academically rigorous, operates within frameworks designed by and for liberal feminism's global administrators. These frameworks privilege technocratic solutions, de-link gendered violence from histories of racial capitalism and imperial dispossession, and systematically displace radical or decolonial feminist theory. The result is an epistemic narrowing in which donor-approved metrics define legitimacy, while anti-imperial perspectives are dismissed as ideological excess. Vetten's position in the Tribunal was not one of detached expertise, but of ideological utility. Her testimony aligned seamlessly with the narrative preferences of the liberal media ecosystem. She is not an impartial observer; she is a functionary of a wider donor apparatus that has, historically and presently, advanced regime change under the cover of gender justice. In this context, she does not simply speak – she is deployed. Truth Three: Judge Mbenenge's Autonomy as Symbolic Threat Judge Selby Mbenenge, should allegations against him be substantiated, must indeed be held accountable through rigorous and impartial processes. Yet critically analysed, his autonomy as a senior Black jurist operating beyond the influence of donor-funded civil society circuits represents a clear ideological threat to liberal hegemony. At a moment when the GNU, aligned closely with Western geopolitical interests, is methodically purging judicial and institutional spaces of voices that resist neoliberal conformity, Mbenenge's independent authority marks him as a strategic target for regime-change actors intent on reshaping South Africa's judiciary into compliance with Western standards and expectations. None of which pleads for his innocence or his guilt – it is just an undeniable truth. Truth Four: Muzi Sikhakhane's Decolonial Marginalisation Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane's systematic marginalisation is rooted directly in his explicit critique of South Africa's constitutional order as structurally colonial and protective of entrenched economic and racial interests. Through his legal advocacy for former President Jacob Zuma – most notably at the Zondo Commission (August 2018, July 2019) and the Constitutional Court contempt proceedings (March 2021) – Sikhakhane consistently invoked Fanonian/Bikoian analysis, exposing liberal constitutionalism as a guardian of white capital and colonial continuity. Following these interventions, he became the target of sustained vilification in liberal media, deliberately cast as reactionary, chauvinistic, and intellectually irrelevant. This orchestrated character assassination by donor-aligned media and NGOs seeks to erase Sikhakhane precisely because he embodies a formidable ideological threat: an articulate and influential African intellectual whose arguments resonate widely with younger generations and independent African thinkers. His attempted erasure thus represents a strategic manoeuvre within the broader regime-change machinery, designed to silence inconvenient native voices that openly challenge neoliberal hegemony and advocate for authentic African jurisprudential sovereignty. Truth Five: The Donor-Media Ecosystem's Geopolitical Agenda GroundUp, Daily Maverick, News24, and amaBhungane operate within an interconnected media ecosystem sustained by powerful donor networks including Open Society Foundations, Luminate (Pierre Omidyar's so-called democracy franchise), the Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust, and USAID-linked programmes. These institutions have long histories of advancing soft-power agendas under the guise of civil society strengthening. Between 2016 and 2018, this ecosystem mobilised a highly selective anti-corruption narrative to delegitimise the Zuma administration, executing what increasingly appears to have been a donor-orchestrated regime-change operation. The strategic use of corruption discourse under the banner of constitutional defence allowed donor media and NGO actors to entrench liberal hegemony while masking deeper geopolitical interests. This apparatus has always focused on gender discourse, deploying feminist rhetoric selectively to neutralise radical Black intellectuals and disrupt decolonial mobilisation. This pattern was evident during the Rhodes Must Fall and Fees Must Fall uprisings, where the sudden infiltration of US-backed think tanks and NGO intermediaries – in quiet collaboration with elements of Luthuli House – corresponded with a wave of allegations targeting radical Black male leaders. The frequency with which sexual misconduct and rape claims were deployed against prominent and outspoken figures during these movements, often without full due process, raises serious questions about the weaponisation of gender justice as a tool of ideological warfare. While the reality of gender-based violence must never be denied or trivialised, the strategic pattern of deploying such allegations to fragment movements and remove influential dissenters cannot be ignored. Historically, such tactics echo well-worn counterinsurgency strategies refined by institutions like the CIA, where sexual deviance is projected onto Black men to discredit liberation politics and fracture collective organising. This weaponisation relies on the deeply embedded colonial mythos of Black male hypersexuality and danger, allowing liberal institutions to claim moral high ground while engaging in epistemic violence. What appears on the surface as progressive gender advocacy functions as a disciplinary apparatus – punishing those who openly articulate a radical African vision beyond the bounds of donor-sanctioned politics. These five truths stand simultaneously. They are not sequential. They are not hierarchical. They coexist in tension, contradiction, and convergence – as all living truths must. Each exposes a facet of the political, epistemic, and affective dimensions of the case, and none can be collapsed into the other without enacting a form of violence. Yet collapsing truths is precisely the logic of liberal hegemony and the strategic machinery behind donor-aligned think tank discourse. It is their habit to invoke whataboutism when challenged, to flatten complexity into binary moral frames, and to present their narrative as the only legitimate one – thereby rendering all competing epistemes illegible or deviant. This is the logic of control. It is precisely in this context that the five truths around the Mbenenge Tribunal must be held in open dialectic. Mengo's experience is hers and must be addressed with seriousness. Vetten's donor-aligned authority cannot be excused from critical scrutiny. Mbenenge's symbolic threat to donor-managed Black representation is undeniable. Sikhakhane's erasure as a decolonial jurist is politically motivated. And the liberal media's choreography in service of soft regime-change agendas is a historical pattern. To ignore any one of these truths is to enable the ideological capture of justice under the pretence of neutrality. Procedurally, the Tribunal exposed the fragility of the expert testimony used to publicly frame the case. Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane's cross-examination of Lisa Vetten revealed that her analysis rested on partial evidence, translated and summarised through a legal filter that omitted linguistic and cultural context. Crucial annexures were absent. Vetten had not consulted the Tribunal's cultural-linguistics assessor, despite the case hinging on meaning and tone communicated in isiXhosa. Her findings were presented as conclusive without the primary data being fully explored. Chairperson Judge President Bernard Ngoepe's order to admit the full isiXhosa WhatsApp exchanges into the record was a tacit acknowledgment of these procedural gaps – gaps that GroundUp and its media allies had already sealed shut with a premature headline designed to foreclose complexity and manufacture consent. This moment, then, is not only about what happened between two individuals. It is about whose frameworks we are allowed to believe, whose voices are authorised, and whose truths are strategically denied. It is about how knowledge is managed, contained, and weaponised. And it is about whether South Africa can withstand the growing grip of liberal epistemic capture disguised as gender justice, or whether it will open a path toward decolonial clarity, where multiple truths can breathe without one being used to suffocate the rest. As for Thamm's increasingly degenerate journalism, in which she has cast the Tribunal as an 'intellectual heavyweight title fight between the Old Patriarchs and the Gender-Based Violence Expert,' – is not worthy of anything more than the derision we reserve for mercenaries fighting in service of empire. Her reductionism flattens a complex and politically charged legal encounter into a tired has-been morality play. Far from being a helpless woman pitted against patriarchal power, the expert witness in this case is ideologically armed and institutionally weaponised. The case cannot be read through the paternalism of liberal gender tropes. It demands to be read through the fresh lens of decolonial thought and praxis. And this case is not simply about personal conduct. It is about ideological warfare. It is about who gets to speak, who is erased, and what forms of knowing are cast as either legitimate or deviant. More than ever we are witnessing an all-out assault on radical Black thought, African jurisprudence, and decolonial critique under the sanitised banner of human rights and democracy. The interest shown in this case by donor-funded media and NGO actors must be interrogated. It bears the familiar markings of regime-change politics: rooting out those who threaten liberal orthodoxy, targeting those whose authority emerges beyond the limits of civil society funding pipelines. The soft coup unfolding within the GNU has ideological foot soldiers in law, media and academia. Their project is to purge the judiciary, academia, and political thought of any element that does not conform to Western standards of civility and containment. What we are witnessing, then, is not justice – but ideological capture. Whether South Africa can resist this and re-centre African epistemology remains the question. What is clear is that the machinery of liberal capture is always in motion – and it speaks with one voice. * You can read Gillian's academic analysis here: The Erotics of Power, the Semantics of Guilt: A Decolonial Disruption of South African Legal Discourse * Gillian Schutte is a South African writer, filmmaker and social critic. She writes on decoloniality, media and political resistance across the Global South. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.


Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
All your questions about Israel's short war on Iran answered
Daily Maverick foreign affairs journalist Peter Fabricius answers your questions on the 13-day War on Iran by Israel and the US. Question: Do you think the US action in Iran, to deter it from the ability to make a nuclear weapon – even though US intelligence services consider this an unlikely aim – echoes the US and UK decision to invade Iraq because of their claim about WMD? Or is it more about Israel's ambition to control the region? Answer: I think the concerns that Iran intended to build nuclear weapons are somewhat more credible than the claims that Saddam Hussein had WMD in 2003. For example, IAEA director general Rafael Grossi is ambivalent. He declines to say if he thinks Iran intends to construct nuclear weapons. He has said that he has not seen conclusive evidence pointing to that, but also that Iran has not answered all the IAEA's questions about its nuclear programme. Q: And should Iran wish to have its own nuclear deterrent, would that be any more of a threat to peace than the nuclear weapon capability that Israel (and/or other states) has? A: This is a good question. Of course Israel should not have nuclear bombs either. However, the objective view should be that any nuclear proliferation should be prevented if possible. We cannot say that it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons because Israel has them. Any proliferation of nuclear weapons represents an increase in the danger of nuclear war, which would endanger not only the direct belligerents. Q: How credible is the view that Iran is trying to kill all Jews? Could it be that they are in support of measures to liberate Palestinians who are currently in occupied territory or being mistreated in Gaza? A: It is impossible to assess Iran's attitude. I strongly doubt that it intends to kill all Jews. But it does oppose the existence of Israel as a Jewish state – which is not the same thing. Q: How sure can we be that the US' bombardment of Iran's nuclear facilities – and what we are told is the outcome – without verification from the IAEA, is not another huge scam à la WMD in Iraq? A: I have partly answered this in Question 1. I don't think this is a complete scam, as I believe Israel and the US – and several other Western states – really believe Iran is intending to build nuclear weapons. Whether they are right or wrong is less clear. Q: Why is Israel allowed to have a nuclear bomb but not Iran? A: This comes down to who is 'allowing,' of course. In theory, Israel should not be allowed to have an atomic weapon, but I believe the US and other allies tolerate this because they believe it is a deterrent against an existential threat – or just because they support Israel. As I said, though, the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons does not mean Iran should be allowed to have them. Neither country should. Q: The truth as to whether Iran's nuclear-building capabilities have been or have not been totally wiped out. We hear/read 'yes', we hear/read 'only for a few months'. Once and for all, which is it? A: I am inclined to believe the leaked US intelligence report and the assessment of IAEA director-general Grossi that Iran's nuclear programme has been retarded for several months—not 'completely obliterated,' as Trump has claimed. However, Israel and the US could attack again. Q: Did the US really destroy Iranian nuclear power? A: Well, the answer to that question depends, of course, on whether Iran was intending to become a nuclear power – by which I assume the questioner means acquiring nuclear weapons. If it was, it would appear that the US and Israel failed to destroy its ambitions to become a nuclear power. (See also Question 6.) Q: Is the US president allowed to just attack any other country without having to get authorisation from the US government? A: If by 'the US government' this questioner means 'the US Congress', my understanding is that the US Constitution is rather ambiguous on this point. It gives very wide scope to the president in matters of war, according to the doctrine of the separation of powers. In any case, Republicans control both houses of Congress and I am sure would support Trump's actions. Q: How much of this war is related to oil? So many US interventions have been related to this. A: I don't believe this intervention is related to oil. The US and Israeli attacks have not – and were probably not intended to – topple the Iranian government, which therefore continues to retain control of its oil reserves. Q: What is wrong with Iran having a nuclear bomb? Other countries have it too. A: I think I have answered this question already, in my reply to Question 1. The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – which most countries, including South Africa, support – forbids any countries other than the five original nuclear powers (the US, UK, China, Russia and France) from possessing nuclear weapons. This is in principle unjust, as those five have no more right to possess nuclear weapons than anyone else. But when the NPT was first extended in 1995, South Africa, like most countries, took the pragmatic view that it would be better to support the treaty anyway, rather than facing the risk of an uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapons, which would present a grave danger to the world. But in any case, not only Israel but also India, Pakistan and probably North Korea have developed atomic weapons outside the parameters of the NPT. DM

IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Political analyst warns of severe repercussions for South Africa amid DA-ANC tensions
Political analyst had warned President Cyril Ramaphosa that removing the DA from the GNU would have consequences of economic crisis. Image: Jairus Mmutle/ GCIS If President Cyril Ramaphosa were to dare to fire the Democratic Alliance (DA) from the Government of National Unity (GNU), the Western powers might jump into action to punish South Africa severely, warns political analyst Zakhele Ndlovu. Ndlovu, who is from the University of KwaZulu-Natal, commented on the worsening standoff between the ANC and DA since the inception of the GNU. The DA had begun implementing its threat to frustrate Ramaphosa by rejecting the budget vote for two ANC-led departments, whose ministers it accused of corruption and incompetence. Among those ministers whom the DA wanted to be fired were Human Settlements' Thembi Simelane and Higher Education's Nobuhle Nkabane. The party also wanted Water and Sanitation Deputy Minister David Mahlobo out of the position. The DA's demands were sparked by Ramaphosa firing its MP, Andrew Whitfield, as the Trade, Industry and Competition deputy minister, last week. When Ramaphosa refused to succumb to the pressure, DA leader John Steenhuisen announced a boycott of some of the ANC departments' budget votes and that the party was pulling out of the National Dialogue. The DA said the National Dialogue was pro-ANC as Ramaphosa decided without consultation which eminent persons would participate. Steenhuisen threatened a vote of no confidence against the head of state, who has constitutional powers to appoint and remove members of his Cabinet. Said Ndlovu: 'Ramaphosa won't dare to use his power to fire DA ministers or force the DA to exit the GNU. The DA knows that investors and Western governments are on its side to severely punish the ANC and South Africans.' Ndlovu called on Ramaphosa to respect the GNU parties because the ANC did not receive the voters' mandate to govern alone. Ramaphosa's spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, said: 'As far as we understand, there's no standoff in the GNU. Parties joined the GNU voluntarily, equally, they'll leave the GNU if they so choose out of their own accord.' Ndlovu said Ramaphosa's hands were tied as kicking the DA out would have consequences. 'The economy would be sabotaged, and that would mean higher unemployment, more poverty, and South Africa doesn't want to become another Zimbabwe,' said Ndlovu. He said the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Act, the National Health Insurance Act, and the Land Expropriation Act were a result of bullying 'as if it (ANC) was still in control of the executive'. 'The ANC no longer has an outright majority and, therefore, needs to compromise to reach consensus with its coalition partners, particularly the DA (because) clearly, the gloves are off now. 'By pulling out of the National Dialogue, the DA hopes to frustrate and punish the ANC for acting as if it still has an outright majority,' said Ndlovu. Ndlovu said that although the DA felt like an abused partner in a marriage, it does not want the marriage to end because it has more to lose than to gain in a divorce. 'There is no hope to iron out the differences, but to hang in there until the end of the term of office. 'The only way to manage the differences is to keep reminding each other that they need each other. Already, these differences are disrupting the work of the GNU and making it ineffective,' said Ndlovu. During a media briefing in Cape Town on Saturday, Steenhuisen challenged the ANC when he said: 'If the ANC wants to kick the DA out for fighting against corruption, well, so be it.' Soon after Minister Simelane tabled her R33 billion budget vote in Parliament on Thursday, the DA rejected it. 'We cannot support allocating R33 billion to a department led by a minister implicated in serious corruption. Since President Ramaphosa refuses to act, the DA will take every possible step to prevent further misuse of public funds,' read its statement. The DA was joined by the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in rejecting Nkabane's budget. DA national spokesperson Willie Aucamp said his party was not opposed to the budget, but to ministers who are handling it 'as part of the fight against corruption'. He said the ANC was not listening to the DA's input in the GNU. 'The ANC had become used to over 30 years of being in power alone, and it will take time for it to come to terms with the fact that they don't govern alone anymore. 'President Ramaphosa must have a Cabinet with people fit for the purpose and who are worthy of being members of the Cabinet,' said Aucamp. He said the parties should stick to the Statement of Intent, which the parties signed before the formation of the GNU, which says that there should be sufficient consensus in the government's decision. The ANC questioned the DA's commitment to the GNU, stating that its vote against the departments' budget was 'not only disruptive but also undermined the very spirit and functioning of the GNU, to which the DA has committed itself'. 'South Africans deserve clarity and leadership guided by national interest, not short-term political expediency,' said ANC national spokesperson Mahlengi Bhengu-Motsiri. Another political analyst, Sakhile Hadebe, said the DA was trying too hard to prove its existence and visibility in the GNU. He did not see the ANC voting against the budget of DA-led departments because, as the biggest party in the GNU, the ANC 'must lead by example and properly'. [email protected]