Convention date confirmed
🔗 https://t.co/jxe8pLZLej pic.twitter.com/owE4zP9Ktf
— The Presidency 🇿🇦 (@PresidencyZA) June 12, 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
16 hours ago
- IOL News
Labour Party's legal bid to halt National Dialogue dismissed by Gauteng High Court
President Cyril Ramaphosa claims the dialogue will develop a national ethos and shared value system to unify a divided country, plagued by economic inequality, high crime, unemployment, and political instability. Image: Itumeleng English / Independent Newspapers The Labour Party of South Africa has failed in its urgent legal bid for an interim interdict to halt the National Dialogue set to commence on August 15. The party turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, to urgently halt the President's decision to convene a National Dialogue and two related conventions. At the heart of its objections were the costs associated with this. It argued that the National Dialogue is not a genuine democratic exercise, but a costly and dangerous duplication of the national legislature. It argued that the National Dialogue Preparatory Committee estimates that the initiative will cost over R700 million, according to an announcement dated June 12. The government, however, in its argument to court, denied this amount. According to the State respondents, a final budget will only be developed following engagements with the National Treasury and other potential partners. The Labour Party's approach to the court was motivated by constitutional concerns. It questioned what power the President has to establish a National Dialogue. It argued that if its ultimate aim is to ensure public participation, create policy and make binding decisions, this is a duplication of the functions of Parliament. It also questioned whether it would be lawful to attach a R700 million price tag for a part of this endeavour. 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 They asked the court to halt the National Dialogue, pending an opportunity to later review the President's decision. Acting Judge I de Vos said the Constitution mandates the President to promote national unity and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court has repeatedly asserted this process is ongoing and that this duty falls to the President. 'The court is not, based on the text of the Constitution and the jurisprudence from the Constitutional Court, persuaded that the President is acting outside his powers,' she said. The judge added that the court is not persuaded that the applicant has made out a prima facie case on this basis or that it bears strong prospects of success in the review on this ground. 'The court is not empowered to determine if a National Dialogue is the best method for promoting national unity. Or if the same people that have been invited to the table to do the preparatory work are the ones the court would have chosen. Or even if it would rather spend money on a National Dialogue or on health care or some other issue.' Judge de Vos added that the goal of the National Dialogue, which consists of public participation and engagement, is to promote national unity. 'There is a rational link between the National Dialogue, particularly one premised on public participation, and the promotion of national unity,' she said. In turning down the application, she concluded that the Labour Party has failed to meet the threshold to show irrationality in the method employed in announcing the National Dialogue. 'The court is not convinced that the Labour Party has proven a prima facie right in this regard and is doubtful as to its prospects of success at the hearing of the final relief,' she said. As to the money involved, the judge said the court is not empowered to ask whether this is the best use of money. That is the domain of the executive. Cape Times
IOL News
2 days ago
- IOL News
Gauteng High Court dismisses Labour Party's bid to halt National Dialogue
The Labour Party representatives packed the Pretoria High Court earlier with its urgent application opposing next month's proposed National Dialogue. Image: Zelda Venter The Labour Party of South Africa failed in its urgent legal bid for an interim interdict to halt the National Dialogue set to commence on August 15. The party turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, to urgently halt the President's decision to convene a National Dialogue and two related conventions. At the heart of its objections were the costs associated with this. It argued that the National Dialogue is not a genuine democratic exercise, but a costly and dangerous duplication of the national legislature. It argued that the National Dialogue Preparatory Committee estimates that the initiative will cost over R700 million, according to an announcement dated June 12. Government, however, in its argument to court, denied this amount. According to the State respondents, a final budget will only be developed following engagements with the National Treasury and other potential partners. The Labour Party's approach to the court was motivated by constitutional concerns. It questioned what power the President has to establish a National Dialogue. It argued that if its ultimate aim is to ensure public participation, create policy and make binding decisions, this is a duplication of the functions of Parliament. It also questioned whether it would be lawful to attach a R 700 million price tag for a part of this endeavour. 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 ✕ They ask the court to halt the National Dialogue, pending an opportunity to later review the President's decision. Acting Judge I de Vos said the Constitution mandates the President to promote national unity and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court has repeatedly asserted this process is ongoing and that this duty falls to the President. 'The court is not, based on the text of the Constitution and the jurisprudence from the Constitutional Court, persuaded that the President is acting outside his powers,' she said. The judge added that the court is not persuaded that the applicant has made out a prima facie case on this basis or that it bears strong prospects of success in the review on this ground. 'The court is not empowered to determine if a National Dialogue is the best method for promoting national unity. Or if the same people that have been invited to the table to do the preparatory work are the ones the court would have chosen. Or even if it would rather spend money on a National Dialogue or on health care or some other issue.' Judge de Vos added that the goal of the National Dialogue, which consists of public participation and engagement, is to promote national unity. 'There is a rational link between the National Dialogue, particularly one premised on public participation, and the promotion of national unity,' she said. In turning down the application, she concluded that the Labour Party has failed to meet the threshold to show irrationality in the method employed in announcing the National Dialogue. 'The court is not convinced that the Labour Party has proven a prima facie right in this regard and is doubtful as to its prospects of success at the hearing of the final relief,' she said. As to the money involved, the judge said the court is not empowered to ask whether this is the best use of money. That is the domain of the executive.
The Citizen
3 days ago
- The Citizen
The DA is failing dismally
Every passing week brings a new reversal for the DA. Party leader John Steenhuisen has misjudged every single power play made by the ANC. The DA performed much better as the official opposition than it did in its self-appointed role as the party that would galvanise the government of national unity (GNU). The same is true of its leader, John Steenhuisen. Its ministers have executed their duties with a zeal that puts their ANC counterparts to shame. But its larger strategy has fallen flat. The DA believed this link-up for the greater good with its former foe was a prerequisite for achieving the economic lift-off that would drag in its slipstream a fleet of benefits, such as revitalised institutions. It is self-evident that nothing like that has happened. ALSO READ: Steenhuisen has made a bad situation worse with tactical blunders Instead, the DA has been house-trained by the ANC. It barks furiously and still strains at the leash on occasion, but it will sit up and beg on President Cyril Ramaphosa's command. While I don't share the disdain of many journalists for Steenhuisen, some of the criticism is deserved. As DA leader, he has misjudged every single power play made by the ANC, from accepting a poor partnership deal at the outset to being goaded into making meaningless threats that he has been forced to back off from. Every passing week brings a new reversal for the DA. This week, its support ensured that the Appropriation Bill for all government departments was passed at its first reading. It's about as complete a climbdown as can be imagined for a party that had threatened to block the Bill. The plan had been that this would be the DA riposte to Ramaphosa's sudden firing of the DA's Andrew Whitfield, Steenhuisen had been incandescent. 'If this situation is not corrected, it will go down as the greatest political mistake in modern SA history,' he warned parliament. On the face of it, it was a brilliantly simple move. The DA would counter the ANC by singling out only departments headed by ministers implicated in corruption. ALSO READ: Steenhuisen warned of 'insubordination' over national dialogue stance Unless Ramaphosa sacked those ministers within 48 hours, the DA would join the uMkhonto weSizwe party and the department of economic development in voting down their departmental budgets, thus stymying the passage of the Appropriation Bill. The DA, said Steenhuisen, would vote against the departmental budgets of Nobuhle Nkabane (higher education), Thembi Simelane (human settlements) and 'corruption-accused ANC ministers'. The DA would also withdraw from the National Dialogue, no doubt the DA was chortling at its genius. At least three 'compromised' ANC politicians would bite the dust and the DA would be perceived to be guardians of governmental integrity. It didn't work out quite like that. Ramaphosa did indeed fire Nkabane, but it had more to do with ANC self-interest than the DA ultimatum. She was already fatally politically wounded and facing cross-party, including ANC, sanctions from the parliamentary ethics committee. ALSO READ: 'Long overdue' – Opposition parties welcome Nkabane's removal And in a real up-yours, Ramaphosa didn't fire any of the other DA-named ministers. This turned out to be just another dismally misjudged power play by Steenhuisen. But Steenhuisen has hinted that he has one card to play: proposing a motion of no confidence. This would not mean a general election – constitutionally, the earliest this could happen is in 2027 – but if it succeeded, Ramaphosa would have to resign. In that kind of scramble, because the ANC is so deeply divided, the DA could, at last, influence the direction of the state by choosing the person at the top, rather than merely lending the party their votes. It's time for the DA to etch a steely red line. READ NEXT: 'Right-wing nexus': Presidency cautions South Africans against the DA
