Macpherson halts EPWP funds to Free State municipality amid 'political gains'
City Press reported the municipality's EPWP pays inflated salaries to former councillors and sitting political office bearers, with others earning more than R31,000 a month — 10 times more than the average EPWP stipend.
The EPWP provides unemployed individuals, especially youth, with temporary employment opportunities while equipping them with skills to be employable. Participants receive a stipend.
Macpherson said the programme was not a 'vehicle for patronage'.
'The EPWP is an essential lifeline for many in communities around the country, including in Matjhabeng, and it would be unacceptable if any politician or official is found to have used the programme for personal benefit,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
4 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Born Free: Will President Ramaphosa survive until 2029? with Dr Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh
This week on Born Free , Khumo Kumalo and Otsile Nkadimeng sit down with political analyst and SMWX host Dr. Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh to unpack a pivotal moment in South African politics. With uMkhonto weSizwe's proposed vote of no confidence grabbing headlines, we examine what's driving it—and what's at stake. We also explore the shifting dynamics within the Government of National Unity , and how they may reshape the political landscape ahead of the 2026/27 Local Government Elections . The episode digs into upcoming leadership contests in the ANC and DA , breaking down the key players, internal tensions, and possible outcomes. Could these changes alter the direction of the country—and will President Ramaphosa serve out his full term? It's a grounded, in-depth conversation about power, leadership, and the future of South Africa.📌 Like, comment, and subscribe to Born Free for more bold, independent analysis from a new generation of South African voices. Khumo Kumalo is the visionary behind Misunderstood and the dynamic co-host of Born Free . Named one of the Mail & Guardian's Top 200 Young South Africans of 2024 , he is a bold voice in the country's evolving political discourse. As the author of Newsletter 94 (formerly Misunderstood), Kumalo delves into South Africa's complex history and shifting political landscape, reflecting on the dreams and realities of a post-apartheid nation. His passion for debate and current affairs was ignited at St John's College , later taking him to Morehouse College in Atlanta, Georgia , where he continued to sharpen his perspective on leadership and social change. Kumalo isn't just asking questions—he's challenging narratives, sparking conversations, and pushing South Africa's youth to rethink what it truly means to be Born Free . Otsile Nkadimeng is a published author, policy writer, and changemaker , balancing his role as a second-year university student with a deep commitment to youth empowerment. Recognized by News24 for his impact and awarded the Young Nelson Mandela Award in 2023 , he is shaping conversations on democracy, governance, and sustainability. As the Executive Director of SoWeVote , a platform he co-founded, Nkadimeng is making it easier for young South Africans to access critical information about politics and democracy. His advocacy extends beyond borders—he serves as a Youth Advisor to the Embassy of Sweden in Pretoria and is a fellow at the International Youth Think Tank , where he contributes to global youth policy discussions. Passionate about sustainability, he has co-founded and led multiple initiatives aimed at environmental and social progress across South Africa. Whether in civic engagement, international diplomacy, or grassroots activism, Nkadimeng is at the forefront of youth-led change, proving that young voices aren't just part of the conversation—they're leading it. Disclaimer: 'Born Free' is an opinion-based podcast and does not represent the views of M&G Media (PTY) LTD, its owners, affiliates, employees, or partners. The opinions expressed by the hosts and guests are their own and do not reflect the editorial stance of the Mail & Guardian.
Mail & Guardian
7 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Let's draw lessons from people's power on 40th anniversary of State of Emergency
The formation of the United Democratic Front was 'the most important and truly organisational expression of popular resistance in South Africa in the 1980s'. Photo: Eli Weinberg/Robben Island Mayibuye Archive This year is the 40th anniversary of the first State of Emergency by the apartheid regime. In recalling this ignoble anniversary, I choose to focus on the challenge the apartheid regime sought to address with that unprecedented suppression tool: people's power. I posit that one of the outcomes of the National Dialogue ought to be the reinvigoration of the spirit and praxis of people's power. And, if some of the impulses behind the call for a national dialogue are the lack of a coherent national vision, dearth of participatory democracy and the trust deficit between the populace and the state, what lessons could this moment of the national dialogue draw from the people's power moment? In the mid-1980s, a desperate and panicking apartheid regime declared a State of Emergency to squash unprecedented nationwide uprisings. The 1980s was the most revolutionary period in the history of 20th century anti-apartheid politics in South Africa. These uprisings were revolutionary in the sense that conquered people did not seek to transform the colonial polity so that they could be included in it. Assimilation and integrationist politics were replaced with what participants called the politics and practices of 'ungovernability' and 'people's power'. Ungovernability and people's power discourses and praxes were understood as means towards the deconstruction of colonial-apartheid and the construction of a new polity based on botho/ubuntu, participatory democracy and social democracy. Understood in this way, this period was a period of refusal of the state of permanent emergency that settler colonisation had sentenced black people to. Between the late 1960s and the early 1980s, when the apartheid state had banned the two major anti-apartheid political parties, the ANC and the Pan Africanist Congress, there was no effective national political organisation that mounted a frontal challenge against the apartheid regime. A popular national movement came to the forefront with the formation of the United Democratic Front (UDF) in 1983. UDF affiliates were the ones that instigated unprecedented nationwide uprisings. It was in this context that a scared and desperate regime declared a series of formal states of emergency, starting on 20 July 1985. As the president put it then, a State of Emergency was necessary because 'the ordinary laws of the land … are inadequate to enable the government' to squash the popular revolts. The UDF was a loose coalition of civic associations, student organisations, youth congresses, women's groups, trade unions, church societies, sports clubs and a multitude of other organisations. The UDF's inaugural conference in August 1983 is said to have brought together 565 organisations with a collective membership of 1.65 million. The UDF was initially formed to mount collective resistance against two sets of reform measures. First, UDF protested the 1983 constitution that sought to open the whites-only parliament to coloured people and Indians while most of the population (black South Africans) were to remain without franchise and representation. Second, and perhaps more immediately, uprisings were sparked by the introduction of Bills that sought to devolve more local governance powers to municipal councils. These latter set of reforms enabled these loathed councils to raise rent and other tariffs. Impoverished working class communities responded by mounting often violent protests. These uprisings were led by youth groups and civic organisations. Ideologically, the UDF was ambiguous. The main objective that brought these organisations together was they had a common enemy: the apartheid system of exploitation and domination. The opposition that emerged under the banner of the UDF was therefore shaped more by pragmatic efforts than by ideology. The journey towards the UDF becoming, what distinguished academic Michael Neocosmos referred to as, 'the most important and truly organisational expression of popular resistance in South Africa in the 1980s' was a long and uneven one. The high point was the mid-1980s moment when insurgents elaborated the concept of 'people's power' to make sense of their insurrection. Insurrection first erupted in the townships of the Vaal triangle where working class communities refused to tolerate undemocratic local governance and lack of access to basic services and goods. Their direct action included tactics such as road blockades, battles with police and the burning of government offices. These struggles were, therefore, as much about material issues as they were about issues of governance. So, while rendering local areas 'ungovernable', it became necessary to establish 'alternative structures'. Civic organisations, thus, not only took part in reactive struggles, they presented themselves as alternative loci of representation and governance. Civic organisations and mass organisations, through street committees, street or people's courts, defence committees, student representative councils and other local structures came to be seen as 'organs of people's power'. A clear interpenetration of civic and political issues was evident in their work. People's power went beyond rendering state control impossible and illegitimate; it was fundamentally about participatory democracy and active citizenship. Writing in 1991, Blade Nzimande and Mpume Sikhosana record that these 'organs of people's power' possessed the essence of participatory democracy because they had the following characteristics: 'a democratic project, fundamental transformation of society, accountability, and working class leadership'. The high moment of township insurrection and people's power was short-lived. On 12 June 1986, the then prime minister, PW Botha, extended the July 1985 State of Emergency to the whole country and gave the securocrats free rein to implement their own version of total counter-revolutionary strategy. By the end of that year several thousand activists were arrested and indefinitely detained. Many were assassinated. Using emergency regulations, the state introduced a sustained crackdown on community organisations and their activities. In 1986 alone, more 20,000 activists were detained; some remained in custody until 1989. These crackdowns were followed by a number of political and criminal trials, as well as the banning of meetings and sympathetic newspapers. In February 1990, the then state president, FW de Klerk, announced the unbanning of the ANC and other liberation organisations. A debate ensued among followers of the Mass Democratic Movement: what should the role of the UDF be in the context of an unbanned ANC? The prevailing argument was that the UDF should disband. It thus came to be that on 14 February 991, the UDF's national executive committee held its final meeting. This short account sought to present the key characteristics of people's power. But 'ungovernability' and 'people's power' should not be romanticised. At their worst, they were characterised by chaos, mob justice exercised by some of the people's courts, brutal enforcement of consumer boycotts and infiltration by com-tsotsis. At their best, 'organs of people's power' reflected the practical manifestation of 'direct democracy'. This was a democracy that made the slogan 'The People Shall Govern' a reality. The acting publicity secretary of the UDF, Murphy Morobe, put it crisply: 'When we say that the people shall govern, we mean at all levels and in all spheres, and we demand that there be real, effective control on a daily basis.' The significance of people's power goes beyond the fact that it enables people to take control over their lives. 'People's power' inaugurated a distinctly popular-democratic political project in South Africa. In theory and in practice, people's power introduced, albeit unevenly, a new mode of politics based on accountable, mass-based democratic leadership. Raymond Suttner aptly names this mode of practicing politics 'prefigurative democracy': 'Democracy was not understood as being inaugurated on a particular day, after which all the practices and ideals that were cherished would come into effect … Means and ends became fused; the democratic means were part of democratic ends.' Was the disbanding of the UDF (notwithstanding the formation of the South African National Civic Organisation later) not one of the mistakes of the transition period? These days, when the dialectic that should exist between representative democracy and participatory democracy is overly in favour of the former; when ward committees have been colonised and hollowed out by branch party politicians; when civil society organisations are facing a shrinking civic space and an unprecedented funding crisis; when community conviviality networks have been replaced by millenarian and charismatic faith-based organisations and crushed by extortion rings, we would do well to look back at this era of people's power. If we don't, the national dialogue risks becoming a platform for frank dialogue and vision-setting, but with no meaningful reinvigoration of participatory democracy and active citizenship. Tshepo Madlingozi is a commissioner at the South African Human Rights Commission. He writes in his personal capacity.
Mail & Guardian
7 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
International Court of Justice and #CancelCoal case rulings help protect children's rights
The North Gauteng High Court ruling halts the government's plans to build new coal-fired power stations. Photo: File Two weeks ago, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a significant advisory opinion that will change how people all over the world hold their governments accountable. The ruling found that governments must take steps to protect children's right to a healthy environment in the face of the worsening climate crisis. This comes just a few months after the North Gauteng High Court made a ruling which effectively halted the South African government's plans to build new coal-fired power plants on the basis that it had failed to consult widely enough and to take into consideration children's right to a healthy environment. The court delivered the ruling in the #CancelCoal case, which was brought by the African Climate Alliance, Vukani Environmental Justice Movement in Action and groundWork. The trio of organisations argued that the decision by the government to build new coal-fired power plants violates the rights of present and future generations to an environment not harmful to health and well-being, but also the rights to life, dignity and equality, as well as the best interests of the child. The ICJ ruling and the #CancelCoal case have similarities in that they both rely on the rights of children to a clean and safe environment. They place responsibility on governments to centre the rights of children and future generations in their energy plans. South Africa's oral presentations before the ICJ on this issue were both disappointing and scant on the rights of children. This is despite the fact that a number of organisations that represent children's rights, including the In their submission, they wrote: 'We, the children and youth of South Africa, insist that the South African delegation tells the [International Court of Justice] our views.' The views were not different to those we presented to the North Gauteng High Court, which were that children must be allowed to make a meaningful contribution to climate governance, especially when it comes to decisions relating to a dependence on fossil fuels. South Africa's energy mix is saturated with fossil fuels, with almost all of our electricity supply coming from coal-powered power plants. In 2024, 83% of our energy mix came from the coal industry. This overwhelming dependence on coal has earned the country a spot in the top 10 users of coal in the world. If the government's defence in the #CancelCoal cases are anything to go by, this is not going to change anytime soon. Despite the fact that our reliance on coal claims the lives of more than 2 000 people in South Africa every year, the government insisted on defending its plans to build new coal-fired power stations. In the meantime, children in places like eMalahleni in Mpumalanga are suffering and dying from air pollution-related illnesses like asthma and chronic bronchitis. In the submission to the minister, the trio of organisations made this clear. 'Children and youth in Africa are especially harmed by climate change; 33 countries in Africa are in the highest danger category in the world for climate harm. This is an injustice because Africa contributes the least to carbon emissions which cause climate change.' Unlike the ICJ advisory, the high court ruling on the #CancelCoal Case is binding on the government's decisions on the future of coal dependence. It is a victory for a more energy just world for today's generation of children and future generations. Despite the ICJ's decisions being non-binding, it is an indication of a turn in global opinion on the duty and responsibility of countries to act against climate change to protect the environment for future generations. Luvo Mnyobe is a multimedia storyteller and digital communications coordinator at , a youth-led, movement-based organisation advocating for Afrocentric climate justice.
