Malema slams 'sellout' Zuma's Morocco visit
Zuma met Moroccan officials and expressed his support for Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara, contradicting the ANC's historical stance on the matter.
'That was a complete sellout position,' Malema said. 'Now there's a manoeuvre: they are no longer emphasising their party position on Morocco. They are saying, a former head of state can visit any country and have interactions with those people. No-one is questioning that; we are questioning his position and that of his party in relation to Morocco.'
Malema was speaking on the sidelines of his appearance in the East London magistrate's court on Monday. The court heard closing remarks on the matter where Malema and his co-accused are charged with discharging a firearm in public during the EFF's fifth birthday celebration in 2018.
He expressed support for Western Sahara's fight for independence: 'We are clear — we are for the people of Western Sahara and we must make sure they realise their freedom in their lifetime.'
The conflict between Morocco and Western Sahara stems from Morocco's claim of sovereignty over the disputed territory. Zuma's visit sparked controversy with the ANC condemning his actions as 'reckless and provocative'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
9 minutes ago
- The Citizen
Zuma and MK party contest Ramaphosa's decision to suspend Mchunu
Zuma and the MK party filed an urgent application seeking to invalidate the police minister's leave of absence. Former President Jacob Zuma and the MK party have responded to President Cyril Ramaphosa's answering affidavit, which claims that the MK party is attempting to score political points against him through its Constitutional Court challenge to his decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on leave. Zuma and the MK party filed an urgent application on 18 July seeking to invalidate Mchunu's leave of absence and Wits law Professor Firoz Cachalia's appointment as acting police minister. Challenge They is also challenging Ramaphosa's establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate corruption allegations in the police. KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Provincial Commissioner Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi made explosive allegations during a media briefing this month, accusing Minister Mchunu and Deputy National Commissioner for Crime Detection, Shadrack Sibiya, of political interference in police operations. ALSO READ: Here's why Zuma's MK party wants Ramaphosa removed in 'urgent' motion of no confidence Dealing with ministers 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. 'Where I was not empowered to suspend a minister pending the outcome of an investigation … I would be compelled in all cases, regardless of the circumstances, to dismiss the minister simply on the basis of the allegations … even if they may, on investigation, turn out to be unfounded,' Ramaphosa said. 'Constitutional power' In response to Ramaphosa's answering affidavit, which missed the initial deadlines set by Chief Justice Mandisa Maya, Zuma argues there's no express constitutional power allowing Ramaphosa to impose 'special leave on Mchunu. Zuma said there are details in Ramaphosa's affidavit that Mchunu will 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 cause him to retain his ministerial title, salary and other perks or privileges at the expense of the long-suffering taxpayer. 'There is simply no potential that he will ever return to the portfolio of Minister of Police, irrespective of the outcome of the commission of inquiry. That unlikely eventuality may also be subject to the ongoing criminal investigations against him, as well as the outcomes of the Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee. The ends do not justify the means. All we are left with are ex post facto and Illegal rationalisations,' Zuma said. ALSO READ: 'Ramaphosa will go down in history as one of the most useless presidents' – analyst Whitfield and Mchunu Zuma argues that while DA's Andrew Whitfield did not admit guilt, contrary to the president's claim, the allegations against Whitfield were also untested. 'For a police minister or any minister to collude with criminals is objectively more serious than travelling abroad without permission.' 'It is also plainly false to state that Mr Whitfield ever admitted the allegations against him. The president has produced no evidence of this, Zuma argued. Cachalia In the affidavit, 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.' Mchunu Zuma's affidavit also takes direct aim at Mchunu's version of events, portraying it as 'evasive and legally flawed.' 'The minister's affidavit is a masterclass in evasion — it skirts the core allegations and offers no constitutional basis for the executive's conduct. The minister's affidavit is riddled with deflection and fails to confront the gravity of the allegations raised by Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi.' Judicial commission Zuma's argument about the Judicial Commission of Inquiry is sharply focused on its judicial nature and the risk of bias. While Zuma does not oppose the idea of a commission itself — and agrees it may be necessary — what he challenges is the appointment of a judge (Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga) to chair it, given that the judiciary is among the institutions implicated by Mkhwanazi. 'It is irrational and unconstitutional to appoint a judge to chair a commission that is mandated to investigate allegations implicating members of the judiciary. This violates the principle that no one should be a judge in their own cause.' Impartiality Zuma wraps up his argument by framing the challenge not as defiance, but as a constitutional safeguard — emphasising fairness and legality in the mechanisms of oversight. 'I make this application not to avoid accountability, but to ensure that the process by which accountability is demanded is itself lawful, impartial, and consistent with the constitution.' Zuma argued that appointing a judge to lead a commission investigating the judiciary violates the constitutional principle of impartiality — specifically, that 'no one should be a judge in their own cause.' ALSO READ: MK party slams Ramaphosa over missed Mandela Day deadline
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
MK Party's budget vote confusion in National Assembly
MK Party chief whip Colleen Makhubele blamed their initial support for the Budget to mistaking the vote for the Ad Hoc Committee that will probe the allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner, Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. Image: Ayanda Ndamane / Independent Newspapers Drama played out during the adoption of the Budget in the National Assembly this week when the MK Party supported the Appropriation Bill only to change its vote despite rejecting every departmental budget. The party's chief whip Colleen Makhubele blamed the confusion on mistakenly casting their vote for the Ad Hoc Committee that was established to probe allegations made by KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi during the marathon session. The unexpected vote of the official opposition unfolded soon after all the 42 schedules were agreed to. House chairperson Cedric Frolick had asked the National Assembly Secretary to read the Fifth Order, which was the next to be considered on the agenda after the schedule of vote of department. 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 ✕ Frolick then immediately corrected himself that it was going to be the time for Fourth Order, which was meant to agree on the Appropriation Bill after consultation with the officials. The EFF was the first to object and called for the division, a move that led to Makhubele accusing Frolick of not recognising her hand first. When the voting took place, the ANC voted in favour with 140 votes, followed by the support of the DA with 74 in support and then MK Party supporting with 49. The EFF voted against with 35. When Frolick asked Makhubele to clarify her party's vote, she said: '49 in support.' ACDP chief whip Steven Swart suggested that there might be confusion on which item that was being dealt. In response, Frolick said he had been explicit that they were dealing with the Fourth Order. 'I followed the procedure and the EFF was the last one to indicate and now I am with the IFP,' he said. Voting by other parties continued with the Patriotic Alliance. Its chief whip Marlon Daniels said his party 'follows the lead of MK Party with eight votes in support'. After the voting session had closed, Makhubele stated that she had mistakenly thought that they were dealing with the Ad Hoc Committee. 'We are changing our vote. We will support the Ad Hoc committee when it comes. That was confusion,' Makhubele added. Frolick agreed that there was confusion in terms of the MK Party's vote. 'The party has now changed the vote three times. What is your final position?' he enquired. In response Makhubele said: 'I am just a new chief. I will make errors so relax. We are voting against this.' DA chief whip George Michalakis said the parliamentary rules did not provide once the voting has closed for parties to change their vote. 'That will be highly irregular to allow parties to change their vote once a vote has closed,' Michalakis said. But, Frolick blamed the confusion on the disorderly conduct that was taking place in the House. 'I called the member on more than one occasion to vote in a particular manner.' He then announced the results that the Second Reading of the Appropriation bill was agreed to with 256 in favour and the MK Party's votes included among the 87 that voted against. 'No abstention and the Second Reading is agreed to,' Frolick said, adding the bill was to be sent to the national Council of Provinces for concurrence. He maintained that even if there was a rerun of the vote, it would not make a material difference on the outcome. Frolick stood his ground when EFF leader Julius Malema maintained that he made a bad judgement because he set a wrong precedent. 'You ruled in our favour but that was not in line. You are making this process to have a problem of legitimacy and credibility. This has to be the most respected process that you don't make the mistake,' said Malema, referring to Frolick when he overruled the MK Party when it was outsmarted by the EFF earlier in objecting and calling for division on the schedule of all the votes. Frolick was unmoved, saying there would no material difference to outcome of the vote. 'The majority voted in support of the Second Reading,' he said. Cape Times
The Citizen
3 hours ago
- The Citizen
A VIEW OF THE WEEK: Putting brand Nkabane over serving students and SA
The façade of selflessness has slipped to show the narcissism beneath. When Nobuhle Nkabane stood to take an oath as minister in July 2024, she pledged faithfulness to SA, obedience to the constitution, and to put the duty of serving South Africans above all else. That promise lasted less than a year, as the façade of selflessness slipped to show the narcissism beneath. Nkabane has been accused of cronyism, corruption, and straight-up lying to parliament over appointments to the Sector Education and Training Authorities (Seta) board, which included ANC members. When her great cover-up started to unravel, with the mentioned officials denying any involvement in the appointments, she seemed to swerve accountability by running from parliament. After nearly two months of pressure, President Cyril Ramaphosa on Monday booted her from Cabinet. She was supposed to appear before parliament on Tuesday, and concerns about what she might have said, if she did appear, might well have been the reason the president finally took action. Brand before South Africa Ramaphosa's announcement was made without praise, or thanks for Nkabane. Something that must have really stung her. Hours after her dismissal, Nkabane was suddenly available and ready to do an interview with a broadcaster to 'clear' her name. She spoke about her desperation to appear before parliament to tell her side of the story — an institution she was allergic to for several weeks. More concerning was her repeated and obsessive reference to her 'brand'. 'This goes beyond my position in parliament. It is all about my reputation. I worked for my brand, and I must clear my name and my brand,' she said in defiance of calls for her to resign from parliament over the saga. 'What is more important is my reputation. I don't want it tarnished. I am not corrupt. I will never be corrupt,' she said at another point. Nobody likes to be judged, but when you are a public figure who has committed to putting the interests of the country ahead of yourself, that judgment is not only expected, but is compulsory. It is called accountability. ALSO READ: From tiger to a pouncing police cat? Ramaphosa is remixing the 'corrupt' until a new caretaker arrives Schemes and criminals Accountability seems to be in short supply when corrupt schemes come crashing down. One of those schemes began to shake this week when four people were arrested for the murder of musician and businessman Oupa John Sefoka, popularly known as DJ Sumbody. Among those arrested was businessman Katiso 'KT' Molefe, who was among those mentioned in KZN police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's claims of criminal infiltration within the police. The firearms used in the artist's death were linked to 10 other high-profile cases, suggesting that the web of crime is extensive and often protected. Where it isn't protected, the ball is being dropped by the police at grassroots level. This was seen in the investigating officer in the bail application of Tiffany Meek, accused of murdering her son Jayden-Lee, who was unable to verify addresses for her bail application, and so was not able to gauge whether she is a flight risk. Police are often overworked, under-resourced, or lacking in skills. It is something they share with organisations in several departments, including the one Nkabane once headed. These are the 'brands' and organisations we should be building and protecting, not that of an alleged dodgy former minister. NOW READ: A VIEW OF THE WEEK: Ramaphosa risks losing control of Cabinet
