ANC's Mbalula says there was no intent from Nkabane to mislead Parliament
ALSO READ:• DA says its criminal complaint against Minister Nkabane being investigated by Hawks
• Nkabane more than capable of leading Higher Education Dept: ANC in National Assembly
• Some parties in National Assembly reject Nkabane's budget
• Nkabane: Parties rejecting budget of Higher Education Dept punishing SA students
• Majority of political parties in NCOP reject higher education dept's budget, call for Nkabane's axing
• ANC believes DA's criminal complaint against Nkabane part of its grievance over Whitfield's axing The ANC has been under pressure from some of its Government of National Unity (GNU) partners to take action against Nkabane for lying to Parliament.The minister submitted a list to Parliament, which said her "independent" advisory panel was chaired by Advocate Terry Motau.However, she was forced to rescind Motau's name after he wrote to Parliament saying that he played no part in the appointment of the politically connected SETA chairpersons.At a media briefing on Monday, ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula said the minister had corrected her mistake by restarting the entire process."There was no intent to mislead Parliament and certainly no malice. Upon becoming aware of the error, the minister promptly apologised to Parliament and issued a formal written apology to Motau, personally and publicly, acknowledging the mistake and correcting the record."
Mbalula has accused the Democratic Alliance (DA) of "performative politics" by laying a perjury case against Nkabane with the police.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SowetanLIVE
an hour ago
- SowetanLIVE
More people deny being on Nkabane's 'independent panel' on Setas
More people have come out to deny being part of higher education minister Nobuhle Nkabane's panel to appoint the board chairs of the sector education and training authorities (Setas). The pressure continues to pile on Nkabane after her own chief of staff Nelisiwe Semane, director of Seta co-ordination in the department Mabuza Ngubane, and deputy director-general for corporate services Rhulane Ngwenya wrote to parliament's portfolio committee on higher education and training. The three declared they were not involved in the now-reversed process that recommended the appointment of ANC-linked cadres to chair some of the 21 Seta boards. This is despite Nkabane last month revealing names of a panel which she said was independent and had recommended names of ANC cadres to lead the Seta boards. The trio's denial comes just weeks after advocate Terry Motau, whom Nkabane said chaired the panel, denied his involvement. In a letter dated June 24, Semane said she was involved only with the advisory panel that recommended the board members. She said this was a different process altogether to the one that recommended the board chairs.
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
President Ramaphosa's National Dialogue is out of touch with African grassroots
President Cyril Ramaphosa's announcement of a National Dialogue, intended to forge consensus around a new 30-year National Development Plan (NDP), is yet another reminder of how disconnected our leadership has become from the realities South Africans face daily. While our communities grapple with gender-based violence, crime, corruption, inequality and social fragmentation, what we are being offered is not the opportunity to confront these urgent crises head-on, but rather a carefully curated event, far removed from the daily struggles of ordinary citizens. This disconnect becomes even more glaring when we consider the lessons of the past. Back in 2009, when the original NDP process began, the National Planning Commission, chaired by then Minister Trevor Manuel, was clear about the distinction between lofty ideals and actionable plans. 'Visions are visions. They are broad, frequently general. They are aspirations,' Manuel warned. 'But plans have to be detailed, supported by numbers.' Ramaphosa's proposed dialogue feels like yet another broad, aspirational exercise disconnected from practical, measurable action. The missing first step: returning to our roots of authentic dialogue Growing up in an African community, Ramaphosa would have been shaped by traditions that prioritised meaningful, grassroots engagement. Justice under the tree, gathering around the fire and community problem-solving were never abstract ideals; they were lived, practical realities that anchored decision-making in language, culture and shared understanding. Our Constitutional Court itself reflects these principles, embodying restorative justice rooted in African traditions. We saw the same values during the Mont Fleur Scenarios of 1991, where South African leaders, activists, economists, ANC officials, academics and business leaders came together to confront the harsh realities of apartheid and imagine a different future. Importantly, they engaged with humility, urgency and a willingness to hear uncomfortable truths – not in corporate boardrooms, but through inclusive dialogue grounded in real experiences. Somewhere along the way, Ramaphosa seems to have lost sight of these foundational principles. The fundamental flaw in Ramaphosa's National Dialogue is that it skips the most crucial first step: genuine engagement with the communities most affected by South Africa's challenges. This is not merely a matter of consultation; it is about ensuring any national conversation is grounded in real data, authentic voices, and the uncomfortable truths that emerge from township streets, rural villages and community halls. Without this foundation, dialogue among elites becomes premature, uninformed and, ultimately, disconnected from the problems it claims to address. The reality on the ground: excluded frontline voices In my recent experience of engaging with three police stations on their approach to gender-based violence (GBV), it became clear that the very people tasked with delivering justice are underprepared, unsupported and excluded from meaningful conversations about solutions. Officers openly expressed frustration at their lack of training and resources, especially when dealing with GBV cases. Some even asked, 'How do we begin to report and deal with GBV cases?' It was deeply concerning to hear officers say that they don't know how to deal with one of the biggest issues the country is facing. If Ramaphosa spent time listening to those on the front lines – police officers, community workers, survivors – his policies would be shaped by reality, not disconnected visions. But right now, these critical voices are excluded from shaping national solutions. This concern reflects a broader problem: the people working on the front lines are systematically excluded from meaningful conversations about solutions. Many operate within broken systems, with little institutional support, resulting in failed justice for survivors and growing public distrust. These are the voices and experiences that should inform any national dialogue. Building an informed foundation: the path forward Before any national dialogue proceeds, we need to start where the real South African story is being lived – around fires, in community halls, on street corners – speaking directly to those affected by these challenges. Language, culture and context matter. Social consensus cannot be built in luxury venues when trust, understanding and practical solutions have yet to be built at the grassroots level. This means conducting proper research, gathering credible data and creating space for diverse communities across South Africa to share their lived experiences. We don't need to reinvent solutions – South Africans already know what works: authentic, community-driven engagement, leadership grounded in reality, and a willingness to hear hard truths. Return to roots Ramaphosa must return to the spaces where he once witnessed genuine, grassroots dialogue. We need honest, uncomfortable, face-to-face conversations with those carrying the daily weight of South Africa's hardships. The president would do well to take cues from his own comrades, notably Trevor Manuel, whose original NDP process recognised that vision alone is meaningless without measurable action rooted in lived experience. Likewise, the lessons of Mont Fleur show that during times of deep division, bold, inclusive conversations driven by ordinary people, not staged events, can help reshape South Africa's future. The president faces a clear choice: continue with another sanitised, media-friendly gathering that delivers little beyond soundbites, or embrace the messy, uncomfortable, yet potentially transformative work of authentic, community-based engagement. Until that first critical step is taken, this so-called dialogue remains premature, disconnected and destined to miss the very voices it claims to elevate. Anything less is performative politics – a detached exercise in optics, wasting state resources that should be directed towards solving the very crises this dialogue claims to address. DM
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Building cultures that outlast politics – moving forward from the seeming collapse of DEI and BEE
In 2020, the murder of George Floyd shook the world and reawakened global demands for racial justice. Boardrooms pledged diversity. Governments proclaimed equity. Corporations rushed to signal solidarity. But just five years later, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the United States have crumbled under executive orders, while in South Africa, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) faces deep public disillusionment. Both DEI and BEE were concessions — important, symbolic acknowledgements of injustice, but negotiated within old systems that largely remained intact. DEI largely diversified workplaces superficially, without transferring real decision-making power or wealth. BEE enabled the emergence of a black elite, but often left structural economic inequality untouched for the majority of South Africans. To more effectively reach equity in historically segregated societies, we need to rethink our system by legislating culture and quality of life in workplaces. True inclusion means that marginalised communities must not only feel empowered, but also be structurally positioned to participate in and shape economically empowered spaces. Structural cul-de-sac The history of economic power in South Africa reveals the structural cul-de-sac that BEE cannot escape, as much as it tries. Starting in the 1600s, Dutch settlers introduced the notion of racialised labour exploitation through enslavement in the Cape, concentrating wealth in the hands of elite white Dutch settlers via stolen bodies and land. Soon after taking power in the 1800s, British colonists freed enslaved persons but maintained racialised exploitative labour and land appropriation practices. By the Union of South Africa in 1910, the British colonial government had implemented a series of land and labour laws that favoured the white colonial elite and disempowered black communities. So, when the National Party took over in 1948, economic policies favouring a white-controlled capitalistic system were firmly rooted in how South African culture, society and politics played out. We all know what happened after. BEE We had an opportunity to right the ship in 1994. When the ANC government signed BEE into law in 2003, it seemed like a way to reverse long-standing policies that had repeatedly pushed black communities to the back of the economic line. Yet more than 20 years later, it's largely failed to do so. When reviewing BEE from a DEI perspective, we see a number of flaws. For one, South African diversity efforts through BEE and similar policies have focused primarily on statistical representation rather than quality of opportunities and equitable chance of success. Because BEE employs 'black' to envelop every non-white person, it retains the uncomplicated notion that racial dynamics are only black versus white. It does not account for ethnic differences within that broad category of 'black.' As a result, BEE focuses on statistical representation rather than quality of opportunities and equitable chance of success, making it easy to rig for the wealthy elite. BEE may be embedded in law, but much of its practical impact has been reduced to compliance exercises, targets for black shareholding and senior appointments that can be gamed without fundamentally shifting economic ownership or decision-making power. Furthermore, like DEI in the US, BEE relies on obedience and goodwill within existing societal frameworks, making both schemes politically vulnerable from the start. DEI programmes can be undone almost overnight through presidential decree. BEE policies risk favouring the elite and leave ordinary citizens behind. Transformation failure Recent articles on issues like corruption have demonstrated just how BEE and related policies have failed to transform South African workplaces. The writers speak to a South Africa that feels trapped in a cycle of economic diversity efforts, corruption and continued entrenchment of racial and class stratification. This collapse is no accident. It reflects a deeper flaw in how both DEI and BEE were conceived: seeking justice through symbolic inclusion, not through the material realities of lived dignity. BEE was not a form of reparations; it did not redistribute land or wealth to those historically excluded. Instead, it offered a pathway for a few to ascend within systems that remained structurally unequal. Similarly, DEI diversified leadership optics without altering who controls opportunity or capital. In post-apartheid South Africa and post-civil rights America, white citizens often anchor their sense of justice in how far we've come from the horrors of apartheid and slavery. Black citizens, by contrast, anchor theirs in how far we still are from the promises of freedom — a future of dignity, opportunity and ownership. Psychologists call this 'anchoring bias', or the tendency to judge progress based on the reference point we're first given. National justice efforts will continue to rise and fall with political tides unless we re-anchor them in systems of power: ownership, education, and everyday workplace dignity, not just in how far we've come, but in how just the present truly is. Some answers The path forward will be tough, but it can be walked. First, BEE should be capped for certain business owners who meet agreed-upon high-grossing income levels. Second, all BEE candidates who reach that income level should be required by law to use x percent of that income towards uplifting the communities that they come from through scholarships and a minimum amount of start-up funding for local black businesses. As part of this scheme, the donating business would also provide mentorship to help the receiving business(es) understand how to expend that money in the most successful and equitable way possible. Finally, both black and white firms need to focus on inclusion training. All businesses have to recognise their ethnic, gender, and socioeconomic class diversity in order to create equitable workspaces and, in the process, become highly lucrative. While some businesses voluntarily participate in inclusion training, not all do, creating an unequal playing field across the country. As a result, the government could mandate cultural transformation as part of its economic policies, crafting a sound-proof solution that is resilient in the face of party politics. While legislation and policy reform are vital, they must be matched by deep culture work – in classrooms, boardrooms and leadership teams. We cannot legislate dignity into someone's daily experience without also transforming how people lead, communicate and relate to one another. That's why grassroots approaches like the Anti-Racist Hot Dog that blend storytelling, education and collective practice are so critical. These kinds of approaches work with schools and companies to turn inclusion into a lived experience — not a checkbox.
