Power must be exercised responsibly and rationally
Image: Supplied
The leadership of our country continues to repeat past mistakes, undermining effective governance.
The recent decision by President Cyril Ramaphosa to dismiss the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry has plunged South Africa into a new political quagmire, threatening the stability of the Government of National Unity (GNU).
This action, taken without adequate consultation or transparency, reflects a troubling disregard for the principles of responsible and rational governance enshrined in our Constitution. The GNU, formed to foster cooperative governance among diverse political parties, relies on consultation, transparency, and trust to function effectively.
However, as Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen explained in Parliament on June 26, 2025, the President's decision to remove the Deputy Minister was made unilaterally, bypassing key GNU partners.
Steenhuisen highlighted that the dismissal was announced abruptly, with no prior discussion with coalition members, and appeared motivated by political posturing rather than substantive policy disagreements.
This approach, which Steenhuisen described as prioritising 'cheap politicking' over coalition unity, undermines the collaborative spirit of the GNU and risks destabilising its complex arrangements. Comparing this situation to the leadership styles of Nelson Mandela and Thabo Mbeki is misguided and reveals a lack of historical perspective.
During Mandela's presidency (19941999), executive decisions were often marked by inclusive dialogue, even amidst ideological differences, to build national unity. Similarly, Mbeki's administration (1999–2008) emphasised consultation within the African National Congress (ANC) and its allies to maintain stability.
In contrast, the current dismissal reflects a unilateral exercise of power, ignoring the consultative ethos of the GNU framework. Such a comparison is not only naive but also ignores the unique challenges of governing under a coalition arrangement, where trust is paramount. The President's constitutional authority to appoint and dismiss members of the Executive, as outlined in Section 91 of the Constitution, is undisputed.
However, the issue lies in how this power is exercised. The Constitutional Court, in Masetlha v. President (2008), emphasised that the principle of legality requires both the outcome and the process of executive decisions to be rational. Rationality demands valid, reasoned justifications and a transparent process.
In this case, the President's failure to consult GNU partners or provide a clear rationale for the dismissal falls short of this standard. Steenhuisen's remarks in Parliament revealed that the decision was presented as a fait accompli, with no explanation of the Deputy Minister's alleged shortcomings or how the dismissal served the public interest.
This opacity violates Section 1(d) of the Constitution, which mandates openness and accountability in governance. The handling of this dismissal has been both irresponsible and inept, eroding public trust and coalition cohesion.
For instance, the lack of consultation with GNU partners, such as the DA, not only alienated key stakeholders but also fueled perceptions of arrogance in the presidency. A rational process would have involved prior discussions with coalition leaders, a clear articulation of the reasons for the dismissal (e.g., performance issues or policy misalignment), and an opportunity for dialogue to mitigate political fallout. Instead, the decision appears driven by short-term political expediency, risking long-term damage to the GNU's credibility and functionality.
To prevent such missteps, the President must adhere to the constitutional principles of rationality and accountability. This requires transparent decision-making processes, meaningful consultation with coalition partners, and clear communication of the reasons behind executive actions.
Failure to do so not only undermines the GNU but also sets a dangerous precedent for arbitrary governance. In conclusion, the dismissal of the Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry reflects a troubling disregard for the principles of responsible and rational governance.
By acting unilaterally and opaquely, the President has weakened the GNU's foundation and eroded public trust.
To restore confidence, future executive decisions must prioritise consultation, transparency, and reasoned justifications, as demanded by our Constitution and the lessons of past leadership. South Africa deserves governance that upholds its democratic values and fosters unity, not division.
Pakes Dikgetsi, Acting National Chairperson of COPE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
43 minutes ago
- IOL News
Operation Dudula's campaign against immigrants raises healthcare access concerns
In a controversial move that has sparked outrage and concern, the Operation Dudula Movement, led by Zandile Dabula, is intensifying its campaign against undocumented foreign nationals across South Africa. Image: Henk Kruger / Independent Newspapers With scores of undocumented foreign nationals currently being turned away at Addington Hospital in Durban and other health facilities in parts of the country this week, the leader of the Operation Dudula Movement, Zandile Dabula, has vowed to continue the movement's anti-foreigner healthcare campaign across the country. Eric Jean Butoki, who represents the Southern Africa Refugee Organisations Forum (SAROF), slammed the countrywide campaign, saying it is putting the lives of refugees, asylum seekers, and foreign nationals at risk. This comes as more than 50 patients, believed to be undocumented foreign nationals, have allegedly been turned away at Durban's biggest hospital since the start of the campaign outside Addington Hospital on Tuesday. "We are concerned about this operation, which has prevented foreign nationals, including asylum seekers and genuine refugees, from accessing medical help. Some of these people are on chronic medication and have made appointments to be treated on the scheduled dates. For us, we are disappointed by this Operation Dudula-sponsored campaign. As a result, Butoki has called on the government to establish permanent refugee camps to help resolve the matter. 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 ✕ Ad Loading In various videos circulated on social media over the past week, scores of immigrants seeking medical attention have been turned away, resulting in the South African Human Rights Commission issuing a statement stating that the South African Constitution allows foreigners, including asylum seekers and refugees, the same rights to healthcare as South African citizens. "The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) reminds the public and all relevant stakeholders that the right to access to healthcare services in South Africa is a universal right afforded to anyone within the Republic of South Africa," the commission said. Citing Section 27 (1) of the SA Constitution 1996, the commission indicated that South Africa has a provision to give healthcare access to South African citizens, refugees and asylum seekers, documented and undocumented foreign nationals, including stateless persons. "The Constitution does not qualify or limit this right based on immigration status or citizenship. Furthermore, under Section 27(3), no one may be refused emergency medical treatment. This provision ensures that emergency healthcare must be provided unconditionally by both the public and the private healthcare facilities," it said. Responding to this statement, Dabula said: "We will not be bullied by the likes of the SAHRC, because firstly, they are advocating for people who are in this country illegally. When you come to this country, you must be properly documented, and if you are documented, then you need to have certain permits. For those who are here to work, they must have a work permit, and those permits must come together with medical insurance, but they do not do that. Even Section 17 of the Constitution says that." As a result, Dabula said South Africa cannot be expected to shoulder immigrants who do not have respect for the country's laws, which is why the ongoing campaign will be intensified. "We have always said life comes first, and we will not turn away someone we can see that they require emergency medical care and might lose their lives in the process. However, what needs to happen is that they need to be arrested for being here in this country, illegally, then they can access treatment," she added. ActionSA has also weighed in on the ongoing campaign, saying the SAHRC statement is promoting the abuse of South Africa's resources through the misapplication of Section 27 of the Constitution, which is why the party has recently called for the amendment of the Constitution. Reacting to the stand-off between Operation Dudula and the SAHRC, Dr Shadi Ganoe from the Wits School of Law, indicated that while students and other migrants are required to provide their medical care insurance, the Constitution insists that no one should be refused healthcare based on their citizenship. "For example, in terms of the Immigration Amendment Act 19 of 2004, any prospective international student must have medical cover with a medical scheme registered under the Medical Schemes Act 131 of 1998. This ensures that foreign students do not rely on public health services and can access private care. "This requirement is part of the visa process and is strictly enforced. This makes foreign students and other documented long-term visa holders easy to track and regulate health care costs. They are expected to carry the burden of their own medical needs, unlike undocumented persons or asylum seekers, who may have no formal coverage at all. Still, South Africa's Constitution remains firm: Section 27(3) says, 'No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.' This applies to everyone, citizen or not, documented or not," she said.
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
SAHRC faces sharp criticism amid debates over healthcare access for foreign nationals
The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) is facing backlash over its recent reaffirmation of the right to access healthcare services as a universal right for everyone within the Republic, a principle enshrined in the South African Constitution. The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) is facing backlash over its recent reaffirmation of the right to access healthcare services as a universal right for everyone within the Republic, a principle enshrined in the South African Constitution. The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has come under fire for asserting the universality of healthcare access within the country's borders, a stance that has spurred heated debate among political parties. In its recent communication to stakeholders, the SAHRC reaffirmed that every individual, including illegal foreign nationals, is entitled to healthcare services as enshrined in the South African Constitution. This position, however, has led to criticism from various corners, including the political party ActionSA. The party vehemently opposes what it terms the 'abuse' of the public healthcare system by illegal foreigners, arguing that this influx strains an already overburdened system. It claims that Section 27 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to access healthcare, has been misapplied, creating a scenario where the rights of South African citizens are compromised. The statement also details that this misinterpretation not only places pressure on healthcare resources but also dilutes the quality of care available to law-abiding South Africans. In May, ActionSA took a proactive step by proposing a set of constitutional amendments aimed at reforming these provisions, which they believe have been exploited to exacerbate the crisis of illegal immigration. The party also highlights that while the intentions of the Constitution are noble, its current application leads to an untenable situation where hospitals are overwhelmed and lacking essential resources. It further questioned why healthcare responsibilities seem to fall disproportionately on South Africa, suggesting that other nations enforce stricter regulations regarding medical insurance for incoming foreigners. 'No South African can enter another country legally without providing proof of medical insurance. This is because responsible governments do not budget to provide public services to foreign nationals without limits. Yet in South Africa, we are expected to carry this burden indefinitely,' argued ActionSA. Adding to the chorus of criticism, local activist and politician Anele Mda voiced concerns on social media, suggesting the SAHRC's actions represent an unconstitutional infringement on South Africans' rights. 'We definitely need to petition Parliament to address the unconstitutional infringement of SAHRC on the rights of South Africans, acting as an unrepentant demagogue to consistently use its power as a Chapter 9 institution to advance/conceal acts of criminality by foreigners,' said Mda. The SAHRC says it is engaging with healthcare administrators and relevant departments to foster better conditions for all healthcare users. In a public statement, the SAHRC urged both the Department of Home Affairs and the South African Police Service (SAPS) to fulfil their roles diligently to prevent citizens from taking matters into their own hands. [email protected] Saturday Star
IOL News
5 hours ago
- IOL News
ActionSA criticizes SAHRC for supporting undocumented migrants' right to public healthcare
ActionSA has hit back at the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) after the organisation clarified that everyone, including undocumented immigrants, may access the country's healthcare facilities. The party claimed that there is 'abuse' of the nation's public healthcare system by undocumented foreign nationals. In a statement issued on Wednesday, ActionSA Parliamentary Chief Whip Lerato Ngobeni accused the government of enabling an unsustainable burden on healthcare facilities by allowing undocumented migrants to access services without restriction. Ngobeni argued that the 'misapplication' of Section 27 of the Constitution has overwhelmed clinics and hospitals, placing the well-being of South African citizens at risk. "It is unconscionable that a public clinic in Johannesburg can report that over 70% of its patient records belong to foreign nationals. No South African can enter another country legally without proof of medical insurance, yet here we are expected to carry this burden indefinitely," Ngobeni said. ActionSA has proposed a suite of constitutional amendments aimed at restricting access to healthcare for undocumented migrants.
