'Ramaphosa will die in jail if he lives to 80,' says Political Analyst Prince Mashele
Political analyst Prince Mashele says President Cyril Ramaphosa will be remembered as one of the most ineffectual presidents in post-apartheid South Africa. He predicts that if the president lives long enough, 'say he touches 80,' he will die in jail.
In an interview on the Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh podcast, Mashele expressed criticism of Ramaphosa, calling him the "criminal in chief" at the head of a 'criminal organisation,' namely the African National Congress (ANC).
'Cyril Ramaphosa will go down in history as one of the most useless presidents we have had after 1994. And I don't mince my words, useless. Zuma will go down in history as the most criminal. But let's park that, we've dealt with Zuma many times. There is a criminal organisation, the criminal in chief, it's president Ramaphosa himself,' Mashele said.
Referring to Ramaphosa's handling of the revelations and allegations made by KZN police commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi in a press briefing on July 6, 2025, Mashele accused the president of deliberately failing to act in the face of damning intelligence.
'You see, there is a moment for a leader of a country to show leadership, to lead his nation. Cyril Ramaphosa missed the moment. He did not act like a leader. He has completely forgotten his responsibilities.'
Mashele argued that Ramaphosa, as president, receives daily intelligence briefings and cannot plead ignorance.
'A president is client number one of our intelligence services. They report to the president. There is absolutely nothing that Mkhwanazi knows that Cyril Ramaphosa does not know. So this idea that there must be a commission of enquiry is absolute nonsense. In fact, it's insulting our intelligence as a society. He knows,'' said Mashele.
Central to Mashele's argument is what he sees as a mutually compromising relationship between Ramaphosa and Police Minister Senzo Mchunu.
'He [Ramaphosa] cannot act sternly against Mchunu. Why? Because he and Mchunu are partners in crime,' said Mashele.
He accused Ramaphosa of being unable to act against Mchunu due to their shared involvement in the CR17 campaign, where, according to Mashele, 'all the dirty money' flowed.

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

IOL News
a few seconds ago
- IOL News
Madiba's legacy: Time to reclaim the soul of the struggle
ANC president Nelson Mandela smiles on April 27, 1994, as he casts his vote at the John Langalibalele Dube's Ohlange High School in Inanda, near Durban. We were once a society celebrated for the moral imagination of our negotiated settlement, hailed as a Rainbow Nation that chose dialogue over destruction, political patience over military confrontation. That fragile consensus has disintegrated, says the writer. Image: AFP Zamikhaya Maseti As the world paused to observe Mandela Day this week on July 18, 2025, we are reminded that this day, solemnly declared by the United Nations in 2009, stands not as a decorative event on the calendar but as a global summons to political and ethical conscience. Mandela Day was never meant to be reduced to a moment of philanthropy. It is a moral provocation. It demands reflection, honesty, and action from all of us, particularly those who profess to walk in the shadows of the long and unfinished journey that began long before 1994. On February 11, 1990, President Nelson Mandela emerged from Victor Verster Prison with his fist raised high in the air, a gesture that immediately entered the symbolic archive of revolutionary imagery. It was not a sign of triumphalism. It was a signal. A political message carved into the conscience of this country and the watching world. That image did not mark the end of the struggle. It marked its transformation. It did not signify closure. It announced a continuation. It called upon the oppressed and the marginalised, the landless and the working poor, to pick up where he and his fellow Rivonia Trialists had left off. The prison gates had opened, yes, but the gates of justice remained locked for millions. He did not emerge bitter after twenty-seven years of carceral humiliation. He came out with the integrity of purpose intact, preaching reconciliation, peace, and coexistence. The reconciliation was meant to be just, it was meant to be transformative, and it was meant to be rooted in redress. This year's Mandela Day finds South Africa at a historical crossroads. It coincides with the build-up to what may become a defining moment in the life of our post-Apartheid democratic project, the much-anticipated National Dialogue, now just a month away. In a previous reflection, I described the National Dialogue as a conversation we did not know we truly needed. It is now apparent that we are a society adrift, lacking a common moral vocabulary and torn apart by deepening social fragmentation. In the context of Mandela Day, we must be courageous enough to pose the most uncomfortable but essential questions. Have we remained faithful to the founding ethos of our democratic transition? Have we honoured Mandela's radical legacy, or have we betrayed it? We were once a society celebrated for the moral imagination of our negotiated settlement, hailed as a Rainbow Nation that chose dialogue over destruction, political patience over military confrontation. That fragile consensus has disintegrated. Today, we speak less like a Nation and more like a federation of bitter factions divided by race, class, geography, and ideology. The dream of non-racialism has withered into suspicion. The national unity once imagined in the fervour of 1994 has been replaced with racial scapegoating and retreat. This is not the country Mandela sacrificed his freedom for. This is not the inheritance his fellow Rivonia Trialists hoped to bequeath to future generations. Mandela Day must not be reduced to cooking for communities or painting classroom walls. These gestures are not inherently wrong, but they are dangerously insufficient. They become symbolic bandages on wounds that require political surgery. We need to elevate Mandela Day beyond gestures. It must become a platform to interrogate structural injustice, economic exclusion, and the social distance that continues to define our post-1994 reality. The uncomfortable truth is that we have regressed. The South African Nation, post-February 11, 1990, defined by an ethos of Rainbowism, has collapsed into a contest of parallel grievances. The original project of inclusive nation-building has been corroded by policies that, while well-intentioned on paper, have had contradictory consequences in practice. The Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policy, for instance, while aimed at redressing apartheid-era dispossession, has inadvertently alienated certain sections of the Black majority (Africans, People of Colour, People of Indian origin, and the Khoisan People). When I refer to Black people, I do so in the tradition of the liberation movement as a historically defined social category forged through a collective struggle against colonialism, land dispossession, and Apartheid. That Black unity, painstakingly built in the trenches of resistance, is today fraying at the seams. We are witnessing a tragic reversal, a balkanisation of the oppressed into fragmented groupings, each speaking a different political grammar, each wounded by a different historical wound. Instead of deepening national unity, certain policies have created perceptions of intra-Black competition, fuelling resentment, bitterness, and ultimately disunity. We must confront the ideological implications of this drift. The emergence of what I call the Lumpen Bourgeoisie, a predatory class in itself, lacking revolutionary consciousness, obsessed with accumulation and proximity to power, stands in stark contrast to the National Bourgeoisie, a class for itself with a progressive mission, national vision, and clarity of purpose. The former is transactional and extractive. The latter, at least in theory, is meant to be developmental and historically conscious. The BEE unintentionally fostered the rise of the former while neglecting the ideological nurturing of the latter. This is not an attack on BEE per se. It is a call for its recalibration, for its redistributive potential to be realigned with the historic aspirations of the Freedom Charter and the social compact imagined at the birth of our democracy. Policies must not only transfer wealth, but they must build productive capacity, foster unity among the oppressed, and dismantle systemic privilege at its root. Equally important is the role of White South Africans in the post-1994 Nation. We cannot build a united country if significant sections of the population continue to self-isolate and insulate themselves from national challenges. The recent episode involving forty-nine self-exiled White farmers who left South Africa under the illusion of genocide and were caught in the geopolitical crossfire of a now-fractured Trump-Musk alliance is telling. It reveals the continued racial distrust, the misinformation industry, and the alienation of White South Africans from the collective destiny of this country. It also reveals a troubling reality that we are once again singing from two hymn books, one Black, the other White. These wounds will not heal through sentimentality. They require political honesty, institutional courage, and leadership with historical memory. That is why the National Dialogue is important. It must be a space where these contradictions are surfaced without fear. The Dialogue must ask why Mandela's Rainbow Nation has faded. The reconstruction of national unity cannot be subcontracted to slogans. It must be lived, nurtured, and constantly renewed. Mandela Day offers us a moment to recommit to the work of Nation-Building. It invites every South African, Black or White, rich or poor, urban or rural, to become an active participant in the unfinished struggle for a just and equal society. We all have a role to play in bridging the fissures of mistrust and despair. Mandela Day must be a call to civic renewal, to ethical leadership, and deep, principled reconciliation. Not the reconciliation of forgetfulness, but the reconciliation of truth, justice, and inclusion. In the name of Mandela, we must confront the fractures, realign our compass, and rebuild a Nation worthy of his legacy. * Zamikhaya Maseti is a Political Economy Analyst with a Magister Philosophiae (M. PHIL) in South African Politics and Political Economy from the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE), now known as the Nelson Mandela University (NMU). ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.


The Citizen
31 minutes ago
- The Citizen
Disbanded police task team ‘tried to arrest Mchunu and Sibiya'
A month before Mchunu instructed the unit should be closed, it had reportedly begun working on arresting Sibiya. The task team at the centre of a fight between 'on leave' Senzo Mchunu and KZN police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi had reportedly tried to arrest the police minister and deputy police commissioner Shadrack Sibiya. Mchunu instructed national police commissioner Fannie Masemola to disband the political killing task team in December 2024, suggesting that it did not add value to policing. However, a month before the closure instructions were given, it had reportedly begun working on arresting Sibiya. City Press sources within the security cluster said task team members had approached prosecutors in Gauteng and later Mpumalanga to secure a warrant of arrest. 'Last month, the police members who were travelling in a Mercedes-Benz V-class Kombi tried to obtain an arrest warrant from the director of public prosecutions for both Sibiya and Mchunu but were turned away. They were told that there was insufficient evidence that warranted arrest,' a source told the paper. Masemola confirmed earlier this month that he had not acted on the order to disband the unit, while it is unclear if his deputy, Sibiya, had done so on his behalf. In explosive allegations two weeks ago, Mkhwanazi claimed the task team had been shut down due to political interference and alleged that top police officials, including Mchunu, were linked to dodgy businessmen and alleged criminal syndicates. Mchunu denied these allegations and a judicial commission of inquiry has been established to investigate the claims. The minister and Sibiya have been placed on special leave amid the allegations. Mchunu was defiant on Friday, telling ANC supporters that black generals in the police had been placed there by the ANC, and suggesting they should be grateful to the party for their positions. 'The ANC appointed black generals so that we also have generals in the army and in the police. They should not trample on this opportunity they were given by the ANC,' Mchunu said. 'They got this opportunity through blood and sweat. There are those who deserved to wear those mantles and camouflage uniforms, but they are dead and they never got that opportunity. They died in the struggle. ALSO READ: MK party takes Ramaphosa to ConCourt over Mchunu special leave decision 'That will be the end of all of us' Speaking to broadcaster Newzroom Afrika, Mchunu also warned against a person acting as both accuser and judge. 'The day South Africa allows one person, whoever it is, to suspect someone and then investigate them, and then become a prosecutor, and then a judge, and issue a verdict all in one place. That would be the direct reversal of what the struggle for justice is about. 'That will be the end of all of us in the country,' he said. Mchunu said the justice system allowed allegations to be made, but had a system in place to test the claims and for the accused to defend themselves. 'It is fair to wait for the commission to deliberate. I support what the president decided. It is fair and square.' Mchunu 'not immune' from prosecution Ramaphosa's decision to place Mchunu on special leave has sparked fierce debate, with the MK party taking the matter to court and calling for the minister to be fired. ALSO READ: MK party takes Ramaphosa to ConCourt over Mchunu special leave decision There are also concerns that while he is on leave, Mchunu's influence in the police may impede the investigation. Parliament's legal advisor, advocate Andile Tetyana, said on Wednesday that Mchunu's leave did not grant him immunity. 'Minister Mchunu is not clothed with legal immunity by virtue of him being on special leave. We know for a fact now that he will be a material witness in the work of the commission and should criminal misconduct be found on his part, he will be charged and prosecuted,' he told parliament on Wednesday. Ramaphosa has defended his decision, saying punitive action against Mchunu would set a dangerous precedent. 'These allegations are serious. They are also untested. 'It is therefore necessary that we establish the facts through an independent, credible and thorough process so that we can ensure accountability and safeguard public confidence in the police service,' he said in Parliament this week. NOW READ: 'Get your popcorn factory ready' — McKenzie willing to testify at the commission into Mkhwanazi allegations

IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Trust in the judiciary: South Africa's crisis of confidence
President Cyril Ramaphosa appointed Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga to chair the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into allegations of corruption in the criminal justice system. Ramaphosa and the ANC have demonstrated that an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution is politically meaningless, says the writer. Image: Independent Media Archives Prof. Sipho Seepe South Africans live in hope. For seven nerve-wracking days, they waited patiently for President Cyril Ramaphosa to address them on one of the most pressing crises the country has faced since 1994. A week earlier, Lt. Gen. Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi had placed the entire criminal justice system on trial. Mkhwanazi implicated the Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu, top brass, correctional services, senior politicians, and members of the judiciary in an intricate web of crime syndicates and drug cartels. The allegations put the country on the knife-edge. This is the stuff that collapses governments. When Ramaphosa finally faced the nation, the address was characteristically and predictably underwhelming. All opposition parties took potshots at Ramaphosa. Those who were disappointed in Ramaphosa's utterances have themselves to blame. First, Ramaphosa is not a man of courage. He has no backbone. Placed in a prickly situation, his instinct is to choose ANC's interests over those of the country. Second, Ramaphosa and the ANC have demonstrated that an oath to uphold and protect the constitution is politically meaningless. Third, Ramaphosa does not come with clean hands. The Phala Phala farmgate scandal must have weighed heavily on his mind. The independent parliamentary panel, comprising luminaries in law, found Ramaphosa to be possibly guilty of serious misconduct of violating section 96(2)(b) by acting in a way that is inconsistent with his office. Ramaphosa was also found to have violated section 96(2)(b) by exposing himself to a situation involving a conflict between his official responsibilities and his private business. The panel concluded that. 'Viewed as a whole, the information presented to the Panel, prima facie, establishes that (1) There was a deliberate intention not to investigate the commission of the crimes committed at Phala Phala openly.' The damning findings by the former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo-led panel have not triggered the usual knee-jerk reaction that we have come to expect from the self-appointed custodians of constitutionalism. If anything, they have been conspicuously silent and absent. Confronted by the ever-lingering prospect of possible impeachment of Ramaphosa over the farmgate scandal, the ANC did what it does best. It closed ranks and squashed parliament's attempt to establish a Multi-Party Committee to investigate its leader. An annoyed Thabo Mbeki wrote. 'Are we [the ANC] saying that we suspect or know that he (Ramaphosa) has done something impeachable and therefore decided that we must protect our president at all costs by ensuring that no Multi-Party Committee is formed?...... We acted as we did [as if] there was something to hide'. There is no way that Ramaphosa was going to throw Mchunu, one of his supporters, under the bus without facing serious political repercussions. The establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry was the only safe route open to Ramaphosa. It enables Ramaphosa to postpone addressing a tricky political question of dispensing with Mchunu's services. Be that as it may, the inquiry should not prevent the police from conducting criminal investigations against those implicated in the alleged commission of crimes. Neither does the commission absolve parliament of its oversight responsibility. 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 ✕ With a president burdened by allegations of possible criminality, it would be foolhardy to expect that the recommendations of the Madlanga Judicial Commission of Inquiry will be taken seriously. That the country can be held in suspense by a President who has proved to be a constitutional delinquent reflects the pervasive sense of lack of accountability, paralysis, and resignation that grips the nation. South Africans deserve Ramaphosa. No self-respecting country would allow this. South Africans have expressed a sense of inquiry-fatigue. They have witnessed far too many commissions without any of them leading to discernible positive effects. Some commissions were demonstrably weaponised to target certain individuals disliked by the establishment. Ordinarily, had it not been for the fact that Mkhwanazi implicated judges in the commission of corrupt activities, the establishment of a judicial commission would be unquestionable. Matters become complex if one considers the fact that the very judiciary had decided that South Africans cannot be entrusted with information relating to who funded President Ramaphosa's 2017 ANC presidential candidacy. Mkhwanazi's allegations lend credence to the speculations that the reason the CR17 files are sealed is that they may implicate some members of the judiciary or their family members. Ramaphosa is lucky. Each time he asks the courts to seal matters that relate to him, the courts oblige. This raises several questions. What happened to transparency being the lifeblood of democracy? If Ramaphosa is innocent as he pretends, why rush to the courts for cover? Who are the funders and beneficiaries of the CR17 funds? The tendency to obfuscate issues whenever Ramaphosa is involved played itself out at the Constitutional Court. Instead of zeroing in on the bigger picture, the country's esteemed jurists inordinately debated whether the parliamentary panel had established a prima facie or sufficient evidence. Their colleague, Justice Owen Rogers, would have none of it. He contended. 'A person loses 8.7 million Rand, they would want to know who the investigating officer is, and has it been reported to the police. Is there a case pending? It is a common cause that there wasn't… There was a deliberate decision because the president wanted to keep secret the source of the money; that's the background to where the panel was coming from.' This invariably raises the perennial question: Who judges the judges? The former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng answered that question when he contended that 'one of the things we needed to do as judges is to give reasons for our decisions that an ordinary man can understand. You must be worried when you read a judgment, and you are struggling to make sense of it.... We ought to know that partly, we account to the public through our judgments. Now, if you write in such a way that the public can't even understand what you are doing, what kind of accountability is that? We don't write for lawyers. We don't account to lawyers only; we account to every South African citizen.' The question becomes pertinent given society's growing mistrust of the judiciary. According to the 2018 Afrobarometer survey, 32% of South Africans suspect that judges are involved in corruption. In 2002, the level of mistrust was 15%. Responding to the 2021 Afrobarometer report on the society's loss of confidence in the judiciary, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya argued that 'the judiciary itself needs to do an introspection and check if we are to blame for this change of attitude towards the institution.' The chair of a commission of inquiry must be beyond reproach for the commission to enjoy legitimacy and credibility. For now, we can only speculate. And the picture is not rosy. * Professor Sipho P. Seepe is an Higher Education & Strategy Consultant. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.