Nkabane: Parties rejecting budget of Higher Education Dept punishing SA students
She said those calling for her head are misogynistic and against transformation in the post-school sector.
ALSO READ: Majority of political parties in NCOP reject higher education dept's budget, call for Nkabane's axing
Nkabane was motivating her budget in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on Tuesday, where the majority of political parties said she was failing at her job and couldn't be trusted to manage billions of rands.
She, however, avoided responding to her handling of the appointment of boards for the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETA), which has landed her in hot water.
As the Democratic Alliance (DA) on Tuesday sought to increase the pressure on Nkabane to step down or be fired, it laid a complaint against her with the police for misleading Parliament.
Hours later, Nkabane faced the DA's parliamentary caucus, who along with the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), slammed her management of the department and said they didn't support the budget.
But Nkabane held her ground.
'They are not rejecting the budget of Nobuhle Nkabane. This is not the budget of Nobuhle Nkabane. This is the budget of the people of South Africa.'
In attempts to counter claims that she's failing to root out corruption in the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), Nkabane said she had gone to court to cancel a monthly R2.5 million office lease in Cape Town, and to stop the contracts of payment service providers who don't deliver.
'When you are against transformation, it irritates a lot when you see such a young woman leading such a huge ministry in your presence.
"It's misogyny. I understand it, I know where it's coming from, and worse when it's a black woman.'
On Thursday, Nkabane can expect more backlash as she moves to the National Assembly to motivate the budget.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
an hour ago
- The Citizen
National dialogue: Ramaphosa slams DA ‘hypocrisy', says party will miss out on ‘biggest show in SA'
The president also questioned the DA's decision to remain in the GNU. President Cyril Ramaphosa has strongly criticised the Democratic Alliance (DA), accusing the party of hypocrisy after it pulled out of the much-anticipated national dialogue. The DA's decision followed Ramaphosa's removal of Andrew Whitfield as Deputy Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition. The party has opted to remain within the government of national unity (GNU) despite harsh criticism of the president's actions and threats to table a motion of no confidence. Ramaphosa on DA's withdrawal from national dialogue Addressing the matter at a press conference held at the Union Buildings in Pretoria alongside Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen, Ramaphosa described the DA's withdrawal from the dialogue as both 'unfortunate' and a 'real shock to me'. He reminded the DA that all participating parties had agreed to the dialogue process when signing the GNU statement of intent. 'Every party signed to that, and it is rather surprising to hear a leader of the Democratic Alliance saying they never agreed to that in the first place.' 'That is the worst form of hypocrisy that I've ever heard,' the president said, in the presence of DA leader John Steenhuisen. ALSO READ: DA threats 'irresponsible': Ramaphosa 'amazed' at Steenhuisen's reaction over Whitfield dismissal Ramaphosa reiterated that the national dialogue was not a 'party political platform', but rather a collective initiative. He confirmed that the dialogue would proceed regardless of the DA's involvement. 'What is wrong with the dialogue? Nothing is wrong with the dialogue. It's about people getting together. 'So what I can say is that the national dialogue will continue without the participation of the Democratic Alliance, and we will probably have a very, very successful dialogue without diversionary inputs or interference from a party that does not have the interests of South Africans at heart.' 'The National Dialogue is a platform for all South Africans to craft a shared vision of the kind of a society we seek to build and agree on the actions we need to take to realise that vision. The dialogue will proceed as planned.' ~President @CyrilRamaphosa #AustriaInSA — The Presidency 🇿🇦 (@PresidencyZA) July 4, 2025 The president added that by refusing to participate, the DA was going to 'miss the biggest show in South Africa' that would discuss various issues. 'What a great pity,' Ramaphosa remarked. Ramaphosa insists national dialogue will proceed Former president Thabo Mbeki has also criticised the DA's stance in an open letter. Mbeki described the party's actions as both misguided and disrespectful to the South African public, dismissing the DA's claim that the dialogue was merely an ANC election campaign platform. Ramaphosa reacted to Mbeki's sentiments. 'He's also appalled, as many South Africans are appalled at the behaviour of the Democratic Alliance.' READ MORE: 'Bring all to dialogue': Experts insist national dialogue must be people-driven He further questioned the logic behind the DA's continued presence in the GNU while opposing the national dialogue. 'It's the strangest behaviour I've ever seen. And when they met, we thought that they were going to withdraw from the government of national unity. What did they come with? 'They come with saying no, no, no, no; we want to stay in the government of national unity, but we're boycotting the people of South Africa. 'What a contradiction. It makes no sense. So national dialogue will go on,' Ramaphosa concluded. Steenhuisen pushes back Meanwhile, Steenhuisen questioned the timing and setting of Ramaphosa's remarks. 'I don't think that intemperate attacks on a public platform when you have a visiting head of state next to you is the appropriate forum to do that,' he told the media. The DA leader said he intended to discuss with the president his appointment to the inter-ministerial committee (IMC) overseeing the national dialogue. 'I never asked to be on the IMC.' Responding to Mbeki's letter, Steenhuisen claimed the dialogue was 'an inside closed shop deal with the ANC.' 'Clearly, there's been a free flow of information, meetings, discussions around budgets and etc. that have not even taken place with members of the government of national unity. 'The first I found out that there was a R700 million price tag on this thing was when I read it in the media.' Steenhuisen maintained the dialogue was an ANC strategy to rebuild political support ahead of the 2026 local elections. He further contended that the matters set for discussion in the dialogue would not be effectively implemented by ministers linked to corruption scandals. 'A dialogue isn't going to feed anybody. It's not going to build a single house. 'It's not going to create a single other job and nothing we do or say is going to do that unless we get out there and vigorously implement the medium-term development plan, which is the adopted program of government,' Steenhuisen added. NOW READ: 'Hijacked' by the ANC? Maimane issues National Dialogue warning
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Steenhuisen fires back at Ramaphosa over national dialogue boycott
Defending the DA's withdrawal, Minister John Steenhuisen says public attacks during diplomatic visits are inappropriate and confirms the party will soon respond to Thabo Mbeki's letter with a full report. Image: Ayanda Ndamane Independent Newspapers DA leader and Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen has criticised the government's reliance on what he calls 'corrupt and incompetent individuals' to implement South Africa's development plans, warning that ongoing dialogue without action will not solve the country's deepening crises. This comes after President Cyril Ramaphosa took aim at the DA for withdrawing from the National Dialogue, accusing the party of turning its back on South Africans and lacking commitment to core democratic values. Ramaphosa called it a 'great form of hypocrisy.' Ramaphosa was hosting the president of Austria, Alexander van der Bellen, to deepen economic and trade relations between the two parties at the Union Buildings in Pretoria. 'It's the poverty of adherence to good principles for a party to walk away from the people of South Africa,' Ramaphosa said. 'Nothing is wrong with the dialogue. It will continue without the participation of the Democratic Alliance.' He stressed that the dialogue was not a party-political event but a national platform for all South Africans—churches, foundations, communities—to reflect on the country's progress 30 years into democracy. 'This is not a party political platform. It's a platform that will see the participation of the people of South Africa as a whole. Political parties will play a very minimal role,' Ramaphosa said. He warned that by boycotting the initiative, the DA was depriving its own supporters of the opportunity to help shape South Africa's future. 'What a pity for a party that says it represents 20 or so percent of the people of South Africa. They are depriving those that they seek to represent an opportunity to make an input into the future of the country.' Steenhuisen, speaking on the sidelines at the Union Buildings, said: 'If you're going to rely on those people to be the ones implementing your plans and your decisions, it's going to end up just like every other issue, every other talk-shop that's happened for the last 20 years. People will still be living in abject poverty. Unemployment will still be unacceptably high.' He insisted that South Africans have had '30 years of talking' and what is needed now is action—specifically, the immediate and vigorous implementation of the Medium-Term Development Plan (MTDP), which the government has adopted as its roadmap to achieving 3% economic growth. 'A dialogue isn't going to feed anybody. It's not going to build a single house or create a single job. We must burn off the oxygen implementing the plan,' Steenhuisen said. Referencing former President Thabo Mbeki's controversial Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) strategy in the 1990s, Steenhuisen noted how Mbeki stood firm in the face of opposition, insisting the government had a mandate to deliver. 'We have a medium-term development plan. The President has said this is the pathway. Ministers have been tasked to internalise it. Now we need delivery, not more roundtable discussions,' he said. Ramaphosa, in contrast, said the National Dialogue echoes historical milestones like the Freedom Charter and the post-apartheid constitutional negotiations—broad-based, people-led processes that helped shape democratic South Africa. 'To have those who want to boycott an overarching national manifestation like what we had when we drafted our constitution comes as a real shock to me,' Ramaphosa said. He added that former President Mbeki, too, had expressed his disappointment with the DA's decision to boycott the dialogue. ''I'm not surprised to see former President Thabo Mbeki having written a 10-page letter or so about precisely this, because he's also appalled, as many South Africans are appalled, at the behavior of the Democratic Alliance,'' said Ramaphosa. Steenhuisen said that the DA would respond soon to Mbeki's recently released 11-page open letter. 'I don't think intemperate attacks on a public platform, when you have a visiting head of state next to you, is the appropriate forum to do that. We will also provide Thabo Mbeki with a full report. [email protected] Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel IOL Politics
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
US Congress proposes sanctions against South Africa over Israel case
US President Donald Trump hands papers to President Cyril Ramaphosa during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Image: AFP A controversial bill introduced in the United States Congress aims to cut off direct aid to South Africa and impose targeted sanctions on its political leaders, citing the country's legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice and its growing diplomatic ties with Iran and Hamas. Republican Representative Greg Steube on Friday tabled the Addressing Hostile and Antisemitic Conduct by the Republic of South Africa Act of 2025 in the US House of Representatives. The proposed legislation accuses the South African government of using international institutions to wage 'lawfare' against Israel, advancing what it calls an 'antisemitic narrative under the guise of international law'. 'It is clear as day that the Government of South Africa is unfairly targeting the State of Israel and inciting hostility towards the United States and our allies,' Steube said in a statement dated June 17. 'America has no business engaging with a corrupt government that weaponises its political system against the Jewish people while jeopardising our national security interests by indulging terrorist organisations and their sponsors.' 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 Steube said the bill is a direct response to South Africa's 'genocide' case against Israel at the ICJ, its hosting of Hamas delegations following the October 7 attacks, and the signing of an economic cooperation deal with Iran involving oil refinery projects. Under the bill, the US would suspend all direct assistance to South Africa, excluding humanitarian and public health aid, unless the government ceases all formal support for international legal actions 'that unfairly target the State of Israel', implements institutional reforms to combat corruption, and improves diplomatic cooperation with the United States. It also authorises the US president to impose sanctions, under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, on any South African official deemed to have promoted antisemitic policies or misused international courts to attack Israel. Political analyst Siseko Maposa, director at Surgetower Associates, said while the bill's passage is uncertain, its symbolic and diplomatic weight should not be underestimated. 'This bill exemplifies President Trump and the Republican faction's continued efforts to punish South Africa for its principled positions on international justice – particularly regarding Israel,' said Maposa. 'What distinguishes this initiative from prior attempts, however, is its heavy enforcement mechanisms, which would inflict tangible consequences for South Africa if enacted.' He noted that from 2012 to 2021, South Africa received an estimated $6 billion in direct US foreign direct investment, and a significant portion of development assistance has flowed through US government and affiliated aid programmes. 'While passage remains uncertain, a narrow legislative pathway exists. Republicans hold a slim majority in both chambers, but recent infighting, such as the collapse of the 'Big Beautiful Bill' vote, shows that internal dissent could derail it. South Africa's best chance may lie in lobbying moderate Republicans to oppose this draconian overreach,' he said. Maposa also warned that the bill could face legal challenges in the US if its conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is seen as infringing on constitutional free speech protections. At the time of publication, the South African government had not issued a formal response. However, senior ANC leaders have previously defended the country's application to the ICJ as a legal obligation under the Genocide Convention, following Israel's military campaign in Gaza that has resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths and widespread humanitarian destruction. Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights and last year described the ICJ case as a stand for 'international justice and accountability'. Steube's bill frames these actions differently, alleging that South Africa has 'repeatedly turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Hamas and Iran against Israel and the United States,' while 'aligning itself with authoritarian regimes hostile to United States national interests'. The bill further accuses the ANC of giving legitimacy to terrorist actors, pointing to its meetings with Hamas officials and Tehran's diplomatic engagement with Pretoria. The Democratic Alliance, the country's main opposition party, is expected to weigh in on the diplomatic fallout. The DA has previously criticised the ANC government's foreign policy as isolating South Africa from key Western partners. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation will likely be called on to explain whether any formal communication has been received from US officials regarding the bill and what diplomatic channels, if any, are being pursued to address it. Should the bill pass, it could result in South African officials being barred from travelling to the US or having assets frozen under US jurisdiction. It could also signal further deteriorating relations between the two countries, which have clashed in recent years over BRICS alignment, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and military cooperation exercises with China. For now, Pretoria's best hope appears to rest on political divisions within the US Republican Party. Maposa said: 'This internal Republican division may be its sole reprieve – one Pretoria must seize by urgently lobbying moderate Republican legislators to oppose the bill outright.' Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) was best suited to respond to the bill. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation confirmed that it is monitoring the proposed legislation through diplomatic channels. Spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said: 'As you may know, an act or bill is proposed and passed by a country's legislative body, such as the Parliament in South Africa or the Congress and Senate in the USA. These bodies operate within their sovereign territories, and their primary function is to create or implement policy through legislation, typically without the need for consultation with other nations. We recognise that this principle underscores the autonomy of states in their legislative processes. Legislative processes by their nature are publicly accessible, as such our Embassy in Washington D.C. will be able to monitor relevant developments.' On political lobbying within the US, Phiri said: 'We have noted the information regarding the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial contributions to American politicians. We understand that AIPAC openly ties its contributions to candidates' support for the US-Israel relationship, thereby creating a significant incentive for politicians to align with this stance. There is public information indicating that some House Representatives who have introduced bills may fall within this category of politicians.' Phiri added that South Africa's foreign policy remains non-aligned. 'Minister Lamola consistently asserts that South Africa's foreign policy is independent and non-aligned, rooted in its constitutional principles and national interests, rather than hostility towards any nation.' Regarding Iran, he said: 'South Africa upholds its dedication to international initiatives to curtail the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and supports the right to develop nuclear capability for peaceful purposes. South Africa's engagement with Iran is consistent with its broader foreign policy of engaging with all countries.' He said South Africa's approach to foreign policy was based on constitutional values and international legal principles. 'We reemphasise that our foreign policy is based on principles such as human rights, self-determination, anti-colonialism, multilateralism, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and the pursuit of a just and equitable world order. These are universal values, not ideological preferences. Our non-aligned stance enables us to pursue an independent foreign policy that serves our national interests and contributes to global peace and stability. This means engaging with all countries, regardless of their geopolitical alignment.' Phiri added: 'We wish to reiterate that South Africa's genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice is fundamentally driven by our commitment to upholding a rules-based international order anchored in international law, with the aim of protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring that all actors, including powerful states, are bound by these principles. It is not, as you suggest, driven by ideological alignment, but by a consistent pursuit of justice and the reinforcement of international legal frameworks.' Attempts to get comments from the ANC and the DA were unsuccessful at the time of publication.
