Willies Mchunu defends MPLs' decision to oppose the Division of Revenue Bill
Image: supplied
Umkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) will not discipline the 'rebelling' six members of KwaZulu-Natal Legislature who voted against the Division of Revenue Bill because they did the 'right thing'
This was confirmed by the party's provincial leader Willies Mchunu on Saturday. He said there was no plan to act against the six MPLs for their action which the party does not deem wrong. He stated that when you look at the national leadership position on the Bill which rejected it, the six members do not seem to be in the wrong.
Mchunu further stated that there was no communication between the provincial leadership and the caucus before voting therefore the party will not act against anyone, adding that he has directed the caucus to discuss the matter and find each other.
'We will not act against anyone in this matter and we have directed our caucus to sort it out themselves in the legislature. I think there was a misunderstanding,' said Mchunu.
In an unprecedented move last week, six party MPLs broke ranks with the caucus and voted against the bill while 31 other members supported during the chamber sitting, prompting calls for action against the 'rebelling' MPLs, however, the members defended their decision. The member who spoke on condition of anonymity on Thursday denied going against the party's position, saying it was him and other five members who kept the long-standing position and voted against the Bill.
He stated that firstly, the new chief whip Bonginkosi Mngadi never called a caucus meeting before voting and there was no new instruction for members to vote in a particular way. He said in the absence of an instruction, the six of them followed a long-standing position that the MKP will never support anything that comes from the Government of Provincial Unity (GPU) since the party believes the elections were rigged.
Furthermore, the member said to prove that they were not wrong, the party has not charged them after explaining their side to the provincial leadership under convener Willies Mchunu.
The member further said that in their engagement with Mchunu it "became clear that it was an oversight from those who supported the Bill".
However, the party chief whip Bonginkosi Mngadi disputed the member's version that there was no meeting or mandate to support the Bill. He stated that he called a caucus meeting where he informed the members of the position and even articulated the position when he spoke for the party before voting for the Bill.
'I am chief whip of the party in the legislature and spoke in the chamber that the party will support the Bill since it was talking about transparency and accountability so I was speaking on behalf of the party,' said Mngadi.
He said he would not want to discuss the matter further since it was reported to the provincial leadership.
There was also confusion when the same Bill was voted in parliament on Wednesday where the MKP chief whip Colleen Makhubekele voted yes for the bill only to change her vote later, arguing that she thought the vote was about the Ad hoc committee on allegations of Police Minister Senzo Mchunu's interference in police operations which we were reported by KwaZulu-Natal provincial Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi.
[email protected]
Hashtags

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

IOL News
19 hours ago
- IOL News
Willies Mchunu defends MPLs' decision to oppose the Division of Revenue Bill
MKP convenor in KwaZulu-Natal Willies Mchunu says the party will not discipline the six MPLs who voted against the Bill. Image: supplied Umkhonto weSizwe Party (MKP) will not discipline the 'rebelling' six members of KwaZulu-Natal Legislature who voted against the Division of Revenue Bill because they did the 'right thing' This was confirmed by the party's provincial leader Willies Mchunu on Saturday. He said there was no plan to act against the six MPLs for their action which the party does not deem wrong. He stated that when you look at the national leadership position on the Bill which rejected it, the six members do not seem to be in the wrong. Mchunu further stated that there was no communication between the provincial leadership and the caucus before voting therefore the party will not act against anyone, adding that he has directed the caucus to discuss the matter and find each other. 'We will not act against anyone in this matter and we have directed our caucus to sort it out themselves in the legislature. I think there was a misunderstanding,' said Mchunu. In an unprecedented move last week, six party MPLs broke ranks with the caucus and voted against the bill while 31 other members supported during the chamber sitting, prompting calls for action against the 'rebelling' MPLs, however, the members defended their decision. The member who spoke on condition of anonymity on Thursday denied going against the party's position, saying it was him and other five members who kept the long-standing position and voted against the Bill. He stated that firstly, the new chief whip Bonginkosi Mngadi never called a caucus meeting before voting and there was no new instruction for members to vote in a particular way. He said in the absence of an instruction, the six of them followed a long-standing position that the MKP will never support anything that comes from the Government of Provincial Unity (GPU) since the party believes the elections were rigged. Furthermore, the member said to prove that they were not wrong, the party has not charged them after explaining their side to the provincial leadership under convener Willies Mchunu. The member further said that in their engagement with Mchunu it "became clear that it was an oversight from those who supported the Bill". However, the party chief whip Bonginkosi Mngadi disputed the member's version that there was no meeting or mandate to support the Bill. He stated that he called a caucus meeting where he informed the members of the position and even articulated the position when he spoke for the party before voting for the Bill. 'I am chief whip of the party in the legislature and spoke in the chamber that the party will support the Bill since it was talking about transparency and accountability so I was speaking on behalf of the party,' said Mngadi. He said he would not want to discuss the matter further since it was reported to the provincial leadership. There was also confusion when the same Bill was voted in parliament on Wednesday where the MKP chief whip Colleen Makhubekele voted yes for the bill only to change her vote later, arguing that she thought the vote was about the Ad hoc committee on allegations of Police Minister Senzo Mchunu's interference in police operations which we were reported by KwaZulu-Natal provincial Police Commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. [email protected]

IOL News
21 hours ago
- IOL News
Communities call for stricter measures for marriages between locals and foreign nationals
Residents of Greater Lejweleputswa District Municipality called for stricter measures to ascertain the authenticity of marriages between foreign nationals and South Africans. Image: Emma Bauso/pexels At the recent public hearings on the Marriage Bill held at the Toronto Recreation Centre in Welkom, residents of the Greater Lejweleputswa District Municipality voiced their concerns over the rise of marriages of convenience between foreign nationals and South Africans. This was the second of three public hearings in the Free State, where community members presented a robust call for stricter measures to verify the authenticity of marriages, fearing that fraudulent entries could compromise the integrity of the national register. Participants echoed a collective apprehension regarding the troubling trend of marriages that, they argued, are not motivated by genuine intentions. "It is essential that the Bill outlines a clear process to distinguish authentic unions from those undermined by nefarious motives," said one attendee. The committee has previously heard similar concerns in other provinces and has urged the Department of Home Affairs to take immediate action to investigate these claims comprehensively. In addition to concerns over fraudulent marriages, the hearings have also revealed a variety of differing opinions regarding the alignment of the Marriage Bill with the South African Constitution. Some participants expressed that integrating different marriage laws into a single statute may infringe upon the constitutional right to choose. When it came to polygamous marriages, the views proved equally divided. Advocates for polygamy highlighted its historical significance within African communities, asserting that formal recognition within the legal framework could provide much-needed certainty. Conversely, opponents raised concerns over sustainability and potential conflicts, particularly regarding property rights, and called for a ban on such arrangements. The discussion also ventured into the contentious issue of same-sex marriages, with representatives from various faith-based organisations opposing the recognition of these unions based on religious teachings. However, proponents of same-sex marriage adamantly argued for the constitutional rights of all citizens to love and marry whomever they choose. The committee expressed disappointment over instances of perceived discrimination against same-sex couples, reiterating the importance of protecting the Constitutional rights of every South African. Another area of debate focused on the legal age of consent, with some participants supporting the established threshold of 18 years, while others contended that younger individuals should complete their educational pathways before entering marriage. Marriage officers also raised a significant concern about potential repercussions they might face should they refuse to solemnise marriages that conflict with their personal beliefs. Many called for clearly defined protections for these officers, as well as a comprehensive rollout plan for the training of new marriage officers in alignment with the provisions of the Bill. With the final hearings on the Marriage Bill set to take place today in the Thabo Mofutsanyane District Municipality, the committee has urged residents to attend and share their insights concerning this pivotal legislation. IOL


The Citizen
2 days ago
- The Citizen
ConCourt sets date for MK party's case against Ramaphosa over Mchunu
Former President Jacob Zuma and the MK party are seeking to invalidate Ramaphosa's decision to place Mchunu on a leave. The Constitutional Court has set down a date to hear the MK party's urgent application against President Cyril Ramaphosa to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on leave. Former President Jacob Zuma and the MK party are seeking to invalidate Ramaphosa's decision to place Mchunu on a leave of absence and appoint Wits law Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister. They are also challenging Ramaphosa's establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of corruption in the police. 'Applicants must file heads of argument by Sunday, 27 July 2025, at 14h00. Respondents must file heads of argument by Monday, 28 July 2025, at 14h00,' the court directed. The matter has been set down for Wednesday, 30 July at 11am. ALSO READ: Zuma says Ramaphosa has no constitutional power to suspend Mchunu Allegations KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Provincial Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi made explosive allegations during a media briefing this month, accusing Mchunu and Deputy National Commissioner for Crime Detection, Shadrack Sibiya, of political interference in police operations. In Ramaphosa's answering affidavit on Wednesday, the president argued that the constitution gives him 'a wide berth as to how to deal with ministers' 'It is clear that I am empowered to place a minister on special leave when there are serious allegations… so that those allegations can be properly investigated,' said Ramaphosa. However, Zuma argues there's no express constitutional power allowing Ramaphosa to impose special leave on Mchunu. ALSO READ: Ramaphosa motion of no confidence: MK party requests secret ballot Zuma challenge Zuma said there are details in Ramaphosa's affidavit that Mchunu will not return as minister of police after the commission of inquiry. 'There is nothing said in the president's affidavit which justified placing Minister Mchunu on 'special leave' and thereby causing him to retain his ministerial title, salary and other perks or privileges at the expense of the long-suffering taxpayer'. Feroz Cacahlia Zuma said Ramaphosa 'openly dodges' the clear distinction between the power to appoint a minister and the different power to appoint an acting minister. 'The two are plainly not the same. The obfuscatory reference to the credentials of Prof Cachalia is nothing but deflection. For the record, no issue is taken against the professor's credentials… The issue is whether he was constitutionally qualified to be appointed by the president. The answer is that he was not.' Zuma also challenged Mchunu's version of events, portraying it as 'evasive and legally flawed', saying the minister's affidavit is a 'masterclass in evasion – it skirts the core allegations and offers no constitutional basis for the executive's conduct.' ALSO READ: Here's why Zuma's MK party wants Ramaphosa removed in 'urgent' motion of no confidence