Trump's pastor Mark Burns speaks out against Malema and EFF's 'Kill the Boer' chant
Described as US President Donald Trump's top pastor, Mark Burns, is visiting southern Africa and said he is convinced that there is no genocide against white Afrikaner farmers.
Image: Timothy Bernard / Independent Newspapers
US based Pastor Mark Burns, a staunch supporter of President Donald Trump believes the EFF and its leader Julius Malema should not be taken seriously and are attention-seekers for chanting the 'divisive' 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer' chant.
The African American televangelist, described by Time magazine as Trump's top pastor, was in South Africa on a fact-finding mission following widespread and repeatedly disputed claims of genocide against white Afrikaner farmers.
In an interview in Johannesburg this week, Burns suggested that the EFF is losing steam and is slowly fizzling out.
'To my understanding he (Malema) is a minor character and he is slowly fizzling out. I don't want to keep bringing his name up to give him a platform but the reality of it is, that most South Africans don't take him seriously at all, whether you're black or white,' he said.
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 ✕
'I don't want to give oxygen to his name to be honest with you. He doesn't have the steam he may once have had and when those videos (were taken) of him singing that song 'Kill the Boer' there were massive crowds but he doesn't have that type of steam anymore'.
He dismissed Malema as 'just a character who is screaming, trying to garner attention for himself'.
'That song is a divisive song and I am saying that as a black man, who is very proud that the apartheid government is no longer here, as a man of faith, anything that will cause my brother to stumble should not happen,' Burns explained.
He said he understood the historical significance of the song.
'Being a black man, speaking from a black perspective, coming from a nation that once had slaves and up until the 1960s the modern day civil rights movement, many of us didn't even have the right to vote. So it's still not too long ago.
"I understand the struggle, I understand the significance of Negro spirituals that were sung during slavery time periods as people were picking cotton, working the fields and it was a way of communicating messages between each other,' added Burns.
He explained that some of the songs were designed around killing or about fleeing but they were special.
'They had a significant part then but they don't play a role in society today. You place them in a history book, you may teach people about it but you don't actively bring it to modern day society when apartheid doesn't exist in South Africa,' Burns maintained.
Trump played a video of Malema chanting "Kill the Boer, kill the farmer" a recent Oval Office meeting with President Cyril Ramaphosa, with the US President asking Ramaphosa why the EFF leader had not yet been arrested.
Last weekend, Malema said he would not be silenced and intimidated by Trump and added that South African courts have ruled there is nothing wrong with the chant, which was not his as he had not composed it.
Malema added that Struggle heroes composed the chant and he is defending the legacy of the chant as part of the Struggle heritage.
Burns, the founder and chief executive of the NOW television network also expressed his opposition to the country's broad-based black economic empowerment (B-BBEE) policies.
'Yes, it (B-BBEE) is designed to help people of colour to gain access to equal opportunities for economic empowerment while at the same time it should not alienate other people who also want to come to the forefront regardless of the colour of their skin,' said Burns.
He said he believed B-BBEE is prohibitive to investment and is causing people to revisit investing in South Africa.
'It blocks other people from around the world, especially the US if they feel coming to South Africa will prevent other people prospering simply for the colour of their skin,' Burns insisted.
He proposed revisiting B-BBEE while accepting that 'it is desirable to those who traditionally for 300 years did not have access to the opportunities that now exist'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US asks Australia to increase defense spending to 3.5% of GDP
The defense chiefs also discussed security issues including accelerating U.S. defense capabilities in Australia, advancing defense industrial base cooperation and creating supply chain resilience, the Defense Department said in a statement. 'On defense spending, Secretary Hegseth conveyed that Australia should increase its defense spending to 3.5 percent of its GDP as soon as possible,' the statement said. The ministers' meeting on Friday on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia's premier security forum, is only the second between the security allies since U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January. Marles said after the meeting they did not discuss a specific percentage of GDP to raise Australian defense spending.
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
EFF vs fuel levy increase — court challenge tests legality of fiscal decisions
The EFF has filed an urgent court bid to block Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana's fuel levy hike, arguing it is irrational, economically harmful and unlawfully implemented. This is not just the EFF showing commitment to its stance against the increase, but a relatively novel legal precedent that could have far-reaching implications. A last-minute legal bid On Thursday, 29 May, the EFF filed papers in the Western Cape Division of the High Court to block a fuel levy increase announced eight days earlier during the Minister of Finance's Budget 3.0 tabling. The case makes an unusual use of Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court — a procedural mechanism regularly used to challenge administrative decisions — to challenge a fiscal measure introduced by the Treasury in Budget 3.0. 'We took this action after repeated efforts to caution the minister and appeal to his conscience failed,' said the party in a statement issued on the same day, stating that an increase without a Money Bill 'risks the entire national Budget being declared invalid by the courts'. Though it hasn't sparked the same political uproar as the aborted VAT hike, the fuel levy increase is just as important, as a fuel increase touches aspects of almost all supply chains, increasing costs across every facet of life. As economist Dawie Roodt told Daily Maverick, '… in terms of the effect on the poor, that is pretty much the same as the VAT increase'. The fuel levy increase — 16c per litre for petrol and 15c for diesel — is scheduled to come into effect on 4 June. The EFF is seeking urgent relief before this happens. The EFF Treasurer-General, Omphile Maotwe, told Newzroom Afrika the Treasury intended to gazette the increase on 3 June, 'to allow us no window or opportunity to interdict', hence the urgent application. The EFF's legal logic The application has two parts: Part A seeks an urgent interdict halting the increase and Part B calls for a full review and potential nullification of the decision, with the EFF arguing the increase must be reviewed in light of worsening inflation, stagnant wages and the fallout from the abandoned VAT hike. While it's true that the fuel levy is a regressive tax, Roodt argues that the Treasury's hands are largely tied regarding other measures to generate revenue. 'South Africa's tax burden is already dramatically redistributive. You can't make it more so,' he said. In its founding affidavit, the EFF argues that the fuel levy hike is procedurally flawed and substantively irrational. There was no consultation with Parliament, no socioeconomic impact assessment and no engagement with affected sectors. The party says the decision punishes low- and middle-income households already buckling under cost-of-living pressures. While the minister has statutory power to adjust the levy, the EFF argues that using this mechanism — without oversight or legislative process — amounts to executive overreach. The party called the increase 'yet another demonstration of the anti-black, anti-poor, neoliberal Budget the ANC government continues to impose on the people of South Africa'. No word yet from Treasury By the time of publication, the National Treasury had not responded to detailed questions from Daily Maverick about whether a socioeconomic impact study had been carried out, whether consultations with industry had occurred, and what the Treasury would do if an interdict were granted. This article will be updated once a response is received. Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni did not discuss the fuel levy, but defended the broader Budget at a briefing to the media on Friday, 30 May. 'This pro-poor Budget means [that] on every rand, 61 cents of consolidated, non-interest expenditure funds will be spent on free basic services … social grants for those in need.' A silent tax indeed The fuel levy is often called a 'silent tax' — embedded in pump prices and not itemised like VAT. Its revenue flows into the National Revenue Fund and is not earmarked for roads or transport. Between 2012 and 2022, the general fuel levy rose from R1.77 to R3.93. It now accounts for about 6-7% of pump prices. The 2025 increase is expected to raise R2.9-billion. Filling a 50-litre tank will cost about R8 more — a cost that ripples through logistics, transport and food prices. Unlike some OECD countries, South Africa lacks fuel subsidies or robust public transport, making the levy a heavier burden for poor households. Can fiscal decisions be challenged in court? Yes, as the EFF and DA's challenge of the VAT hike showed clearly — but this time the mechanism is different. That case primarily rested on constitutional and procedural grounds. In this matter, the EFF is invoking Rule 53, seeking a review of the minister's decision. The rule requires the state to produce the full record of decision-making, allowing the applicant to supplement their case. Rule 53 is usually applied to administrative actions — permits, suspensions, authorisations — and not budgetary policy. The stakes next week The urgent interdict will be heard on Tuesday, 3 June. If granted, the levy will be paused pending the main review. If refused, it may take effect as scheduled, making a later review moot. Should the court ultimately side with the EFF, it could invalidate the hike retrospectively, forcing the Treasury to re-table it through proper legislative channels. The ruling could also set a legal precedent, inviting future litigation over fiscal instruments previously seen as untouchable. Who really pays? Much of South Africa's fiscal debate is cloaked in specialised language: 'consolidation paths', 'debt stabilisation', 'medium-term frameworks', but the impact is direct: it's on you and I. Fuel taxes inflate the cost of moving people and goods, from taxis to tractors. The EFF's challenge isn't likely to unravel the Treasury's broader strategy, but it could set a strong precedent for how fiscal policy can be challenged; at its core, the case asks who gets to hold the pen when new taxes are imposed, and if the courts should step in if Parliament does not. DM
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Gayton McKenzie should be relieved of his Cabinet position
While everyone was distracted by the spectacle in the Oval Office between Presidents Trump and Ramaphosa, Minister of Sport, Arts and Culture Gayton McKenzie was engaging in xenophobic outbursts, not as a campaigning Patriotic Alliance rabble-rouser but, in effect, asserting xenophobia as government policy. While addressing the chairpersons and CEOs of all Department of Sport, Arts and Culture entities – including museums, theatres and heritage and funding agencies, he launched into an attack on 'foreigners' in South Africa. He is quoted, inter alia, as saying: 'Some of you here [have] the audacity to hire foreigners instead of South Africans.'; 'I don't care how you used to do it. But for as long as I am the minister, there will be no foreigner that will work in an entity while a South African can do the same thing.'; He said that 'foreigners' employed by departments needed to be 'out in three weeks'. 'I said it, I want them out, get them out.' Leaving aside the inappropriate tone of engagement by a Cabinet Minister, it is the language of 'them' and 'us', threatening to divide and fomenting hate, which should disturb us all. In reporting by Marianne Thamm, we understand that, 'Daily Maverick has seen a letter dated 9 May from McKenzie to the chair and CEO of the Market Theatre following up on 'an audit' of 'non-South Africans employed by the various entities incorporated under the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture'. ' We need to fully understand how dangerous this kind of exercise of authority is from a man patently unfit to hold any leadership position. It beggars belief that he could have been considered for a Cabinet position. An 'all-in' GNU required this irksome compromise, it would seem. His Patriotic Alliance won eight seats in the National Assembly in last year's election, which represents 2.05% of the vote. But, Sport, Arts and Culture has mostly been a ministry where shamed politicians go, to while away time or recover from scandal. The ANC has never really taken this portfolio seriously, which is shameful and says a great deal about what the party prioritises. We should also not be surprised at McKenzie's 'instruction' to Department of Sport, Arts and Culture entities. This is who he is, a crude, embarrassing street-fighter, former criminal and a well-known driver of xenophobia and hate. While district mayor in Beaufort West, McKenzie vowed to make the Central Karoo an 'illegal immigrant-free zone', sending shivers down the spines of the Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Ethiopian communities. As Richard Pithouse has written in a piece worth reading again, 'When McKenzie and the Patriotic Alliance were brought into the government of national unity, all its participants knew that they were right-wing populists whose xenophobia was openly at odds with the Constitution.' There is a reason McKenzie initially expressed a desire for the Home Affairs portfolio. Constitutional rights undermined No one in the Cabinet seems to have raised an eyebrow at their colleague's most recent statements. The President himself has said and done nothing in response to McKenzie's comments, which a large grouping of civil society organisations has called, 'vulgar', in a statement released on 20 May. It further called the comments 'morally repugnant and entirely devoid of legal authority'. The civil society statement says that, 'His demand of CEOs that they immediately dismiss foreign employees or face dismissal themselves constitutes an egregious violation of South Africa's constitutional law, its labour laws and its international treaty obligations. South Africa's Constitution enshrines the rights of everyone – including foreign nationals – to fair labour practices. The minister's remarks and instructions undermine these rights and amount to unlawful discrimination based on nationality, which is expressly prohibited under both domestic and international law.' Again, these sorts of sentiments, while rightly called 'morally repugnant', are not new. They course dangerously through our political discourse. The ANC itself has frequently expressed xenophobic sentiments. A few examples to recall: In 2022, Phophi Ramathuba stood at the bed of a Zimbabwean patient who had been involved in a car accident, in a hospital in Bela-Bela, Limpopo, and said: 'You are killing my (sic) health system.' Ramathuba was MEC of Health at the time. It was a shameful scene, and even while the cameras rolled, Ramathuba showed very little care. When these words were followed by an outcry, Ramathuba insisted she would not apologise. Defiant and callous. After the May 2024 general election, Ramathuba was elevated to Premier of Limpopo. So, xenophobia pays, it seems. Stilfontein When we witnessed a most abhorrent act as illegal miners were trapped inside a mine in Stilfontein with no help forthcoming, the response from Minister in the Presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, made national and international headlines when she said, stone-cold: 'You want to send our law enforcement officers to risk because criminals want to destroy our country? What if we send the police or military down there to supply them with food, the place explodes and caves in? What will happen? So families must continue to sacrifice because criminals got themselves into a bind?' It ran on, with Ntshavheni saying the government would not send help. 'We will smoke them out', she said, without understanding how objectionable her words were. What a disgrace. We recall Operation Dudula, which gained prominence on the streets, especially after its leader, Nhlanhla 'Lux' Dlamini, was arrested in 2022. Operation Dudula brought with it violent language and has enticed those at the margins of our society. There is a straight line from where we are today back to 2008 and the painful moment when violence was unleashed against foreigners across our country. McKenzie doubles down Instead of being remorseful and attempting to understand the constitutional imperatives at play, McKenzie reinforced his comments during an interview with the Africa Report on 22 May while attending the South Africa-France Investment Conference at Place Vendôme in Paris. If the interview is anything to go by, one shudders to think what further contribution McKenzie made at this conference. Responding to the civil society statement, he said, ''Our people don't have jobs. We've got double-digit unemployment, youth unemployment in our country, but illegal foreigners have jobs. 'We cannot allow this and they can call me vulgar. What is vulgar? It's giving your neighbour children food, shelter, water, while your own children are starving. That is vulgar… 'I will get rid of illegal foreigners. I will close this type of charity because we need patriotic charities in our country. I will close down the charities that are anti-government, that are anti-South Africa.' McKenzie, like all populists, understands grievance. But he was greeted with cheers by attendees at the Paris conference while hugging and handshaking. During the same interview, he claimed he had 'Presidential aspirations'. So, President Ramaphosa needs to be clear about where this GNU stands on xenophobia and also the threats to 'close down' 'anti-government' charities (sic). What exactly does this mean? In the same interview, he specifically attacked the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, one of the civil society signatories to the statement mentioned above. There can be no ambiguity about the role of civil society in a democracy. It is not McKenzie's gift, but a constitutional right and the President of the country should reassert this as head of state of our constitutional democracy. Complex causes As with everything else in South Africa, the reasons for violence are complex. Sometimes it has been driven by xenophobia, at other times a rather more confusing cocktail of anger, frustration and intolerance bubbling at the surface of our society, fuelled by exclusion, poverty and rampant unemployment. We seem to be straining at the seams as the repercussions of deep inequalities, our inability to bring about structural economic transformation after 1994 and the old baggage of the apartheid years come to haunt us. The environment is ripe for blaming 'the other' while competing for scarce resources. At the heart of the incendiary rhetoric lies populist exploitation and an instinct to simplify the complex. This is not unique to South Africa. We have seen it in Donald Trump's presidency and the arguments for Brexit. Widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo has driven voters in small towns towards the politics McKenzie espouses. Our towns and municipalities, mostly falling apart as a result of ANC corruption and neglect, are ripe pickings for the Patriotic Alliance. Last week, the party won a seat off the ANC in the small town of Sutherland, and the ANC was able to hold off the PA in two other closely contested by-elections. Last week, we heard of xenophobic violence flaring up in Addo, with dire consequences. We should not be so distracted by historical clips of Julius Malema singing 'Kill the boer!' that we fail to see McKenzie and his ilk in plain sight. Our challenges require thoughtful leadership rooted in the Constitution, not McKenzie's brand of politics, which will only result in further corruption and hate. We can call on our hapless politicians to 'put an end' to the xenophobic violence, rhetoric and disruption that often accompanies these protests, but xenophobia is a challenge for the whole of our society. Having said this, however, President Ramaphosa needs to send a clear message against this thuggery and intimidation by one of his Cabinet ministers. The reality is that McKenzie has no place in government and his clownishly dangerous comments must be met with sanction. If our passive President does not act against McKenzie's threatening comments against civil society and his illegal pronouncements against government entities, then we must assume that these comments represent the GNU Ramaphosa leads. DM
