Parliament to summon MacG after comments about Minnie Dlamini
Should the Podcast and chill host fail to appear, he may be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to both the fine and imprisonment.
Macgyver Mukwevho, popularly known as MacG is set to be summoned to appear before Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities for his comments about Minnie Dlamini.
Should the Podcast and chill host fail to appear, he may be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to both the fine and imprisonment.
In the recent episode discussing Dlamini's relationship break-up, MacG made distasteful comments about her [Dlamini]'s private part.
'Bro, I'm telling you, man. There's got to be something wrong with her; maybe her coochie smells or something. You know this happens, man, it happens, especially with the hot girls,' said MacG.
Letsike, said MacG's comments were nauseating in their vulgarity and must be regarded as an unconstitutional violation of Dlamini's rights to freedom and security of the person, equality, and human dignity as enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
The deputy minister considers the comments to constitute online gender- based violence.
According to the National Strategic Plan on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide (NSP on GBVF), this type of violence is 'any act of gender-based violence against a woman that is committed, assisted or aggravated in part or fully by the use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT), such as mobile phones and smartphones, the internet, social media platforms or email, against a woman because she is a woman, or affects women disproportionately'.
ALSO READ: Minnie Dlamini breaks silence following controversial MacG comments
'There is no room in our democratic Republic for any misogynistic and demeaning utterances that perpetuate patriarchal iterations of gender relations.
'We are encouraged that within the ranks of South African society, we have persons who are sober in mind to call out abhorrent tendencies that are a distraction from achieving gender equality,' she added.
Letsike note and appreciate the stance Moja Love channel took regarding MacG's comments. However, they call on the channel to act swiftly to ensure consequences for the utterances they have publicly castigated.
'The chronic trend will cease only as there are tangible ramifications on the hosts of the podcast, and all other content aired by the Moja Love channel that perpetuates GBVF, whether sexual, physical, financial, emotional and/or online.'
Actions to be taken
Letsike said MacG's comments will be referred to the relevant Constitutional and statutory bodies for investigation including but not limited to the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE), the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission of South Africa (BCCSA), among others
MacG will be referred to Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities to summon Mr Mukwevho to appear before the committee and account in line with Section 56 of the Constitution.
'Should Mr Mukwevho fail without sufficient cause to appear before the committee, processes to implement section 17 (1)(c)(ii) of the Act must be engaged and Mr Mukwevho may be liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to both the fine and imprisonment.'
ALSO READ: 'Disgusting!' – Nkosazana Daughter slams MacG's claim about Master KG relationship
Criminal case
The deputy minister also explained that legal counsel on a possible criminal case of crimen injuria with the South African Police Service (Saps) will be explored, and as it may be legally plausible.
'As the Deputy Minister responsible for Women, a long-time advocate for gender equality, and a woman myself, I find Mr Mukwevho's comments reprehensible. This incident is not a harmless joke or casual banter – it is a harrowing demonstration of online gender-based violence.
'Women cannot be reduced to vulgar slurs and the objectification of the female body as this is a damaging reinforcement of gender- based disrespect and consequently violence.'
NOW READ: MacG says his partnership with MultiChoice is 'a natural evolution' despite it being criticised as a lazy move by the broadcaster [VIDEO]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
a day ago
- Eyewitness News
After Ramaphosa's rebuke over her conduct in Parly, Nkabane promises to lead with humility
CAPE TOWN - Having reflected on her recent conduct in Parliament, Higher Education Minister Nobuhle Nkabane said that she could have handled the situation differently. Following a week of public backlash, the president has ordered her to explain her behaviour to him. On Thursday night, Nkabane accepted the rebuke in a statement she issued, saying that she intended to lead with humility. A minister for less than a year, Nkabane has landed herself in hot water over the manner in which she engaged with MPs of the higher education portfolio committee last week, when she appeared dismissive towards them during questioning about sector education training authorities (SETAs). Presidency spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, said that no deadline had been set for Nkabane to explain herself to the president. But he said that comfort should be taken in the fact that what transpired during Nkabane's appearance in Parliament had not escaped the president's attention. "It's often better to leave that between the president and the minister concerned, otherwise you are running the risk of the president managing issues with members of his national executive in the public domain, which is not ideal and will not be prudent. We should allow the minister a little bit of room to address the matter with the minister." Following that announcement, Nkabane said she had noted the concerns about her conduct but it had not been her intention to evade accountability nor the decorum of Parliament. "I intend to inculcate and maintain a constructive, respectful and professional working relationship with all Members of Parliament. I remain committed to the principles of accountability, good governance, and cooperative governance as outlined in our Constitution and parliamentary protocols," Nkabane said in a statement. Nkabane added that she was committed to strengthening the relationship between the ministry, the department and the portfolio commitee.
Daily Maverick
a day ago
- Daily Maverick
Parliament to abide by high court order preventing Hlophe from sitting on JSC
The court found that Parliament had violated the Constitution by designating Hlophe — an impeached judge who had fallen foul of his oath of office — to serve on the JSC. Parliament will abide by a high court order setting aside its decision to designate impeached former Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe as a member of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Parliamentary spokesperson Moloto Mothapo said the Western Cape Division of the High Court had ruled on Monday that the decision by Parliament had been 'unconstitutional, invalid and was therefore reviewed and set aside'. The party to which Hlophe belongs, former president Jacob Zuma's uMkhonto Wesizwe (MK), was also in the spotlight this week when it announced that its secretary-general, Floyd Shivambu, had been demoted and would be sent back to Parliament as an ordinary MP. Musical chairs There he will sit in the opposition benches alongside Hlophe, who is the party's deputy president. In the same opposition catchment in the National Assembly will be EFF leader Julius Malema, Shivambu's former comrade whom he betrayed to join MK. Hlophe has announced that he will appeal against the order. MK spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela said the party was 'determined to expose the fundamental injustices embedded in the current Constitution and will therefore appeal this shocking judgment in an effort to educate the public about the urgent need for parliamentary sovereignty blended with indigenous African law based on ubuntu, collective ownership of economic resources and the will of the people where the law can no longer be manipulated to justify hatred for certain targeted individuals.' Interpretive guidance Court applications were brought by the Democratic Alliance, Freedom Under Law and Corruption Watch after the National Assembly on 9 July 2024 designated Hlophe to serve as one of its representatives on the JSC in terms of section 178 of the Constitution. This week, Parliament noted 'the interpretative guidance offered by the court' which offered its concern about 'the rationality of designating a member who was previously found guilty of gross misconduct and removed from judicial office, and who has continued to demonstrate conduct incompatible with Parliament's obligation to protect and ensure the independence and integrity of the judiciary'. Mothapo said as the judgment bore implications for Parliament's internal arrangements, procedures and processes relating to the designation of representatives to the JSC and other constitutional bodies, it would 'take all necessary steps to ensure alignment with the court's findings'. This included instituting 'the appropriate processes to ensure that future designations comply with the constitutional principles outlined in the judgment'. The court ordered Hlophe and MK to pay the costs of the application. Parliament violated Constitution It found that Parliament had violated the Constitution by designating Hlophe — an impeached judge who had fallen foul of his oath of office — to a seat on the JSC. This would have compromised and undermined the integrity and legitimacy of the JSC and any process in which Hlophe might be involved in the appointment of future judges, the full bench set out in a concurring judgment. 'The National Assembly did not consider the relevant fact that Dr Hlophe had been impeached for gross misconduct. Instead, it relied on irrelevant considerations, such as established parliamentary practices and conventions, which cannot override constitutional requirements,' read the order. DM
Daily Maverick
2 days ago
- Daily Maverick
School's decision to change name from ‘disgraced' DF Malan to DF Akademie ‘undeniably rational'
The Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld a Bellville school's decision to change its name from DF Malan High School to DF Akademie to distance itself from its apartheid past, despite objections from some parents. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed a review application by four parents and found the school governing body (SGB) of DF Malan High School in Bellville, Western Cape, acted within its powers to rename the school in line with its values of inclusivity and academic excellence. This means the Afrikaans-medium school's name can be changed to DF Akademie, as suggested in May 2021. The voting for a new name took place in October 2021. Of the 3,466 votes received, the overwhelming majority, namely 85%, proposed DF Akademie. The litigation stems from Barend Rautenbach, Johan Smit, Francois Malan and Barend de Klerk taking umbrage against the SGB's decision after a consultative process in May 2021, to change the name of the school. In essence, they requested that the SCA review and set aside the decision of Western Cape Division of the High Court Judge Robert Henney, who dismissed the appellants' application to maintain the name DF Malan, the prime minister from 1948 to 195, who is considered to be one of the architects of apartheid. In his ruling, Henney said, 'The glorification of his name by an insistence that a school be named after him in post-apartheid South Africa where young people have to embrace a culture based on the values of our Constitution is an insult not only to them, but to the millions of South Africans who suffered at the hands of the apartheid regime.' The SCA judgment, penned by acting Judge John Smith, found the SGB's consultation process was comprehensive, fair and rational. 'The name of Dr Malan harks back to the apartheid era, an association that is fundamentally at odds with the school's ethos of inclusivity and transformation. The governing body's decision to purge the school of this unfortunate association with a disgraced legacy is thus undeniably rational and in the best interest of the school and all its stakeholders,' he stated. The ruling further stated that, while the school took pride in its academic success culture and inclusive policies, its controversial name had been an albatross around its neck. Stigma of name and call for change The school was established in 1954. Shortly after its establishment, the school obtained the permission of the then prime minister to name the school after him. In 2018, an alumnus wrote to the governing body, describing the name as 'insensitive and inappropriate' and demanded that the school begin a process to change its name. In September 2019, the school received similar letters from a parent of two learners. The pressure on the SGB to reconsider the school's name intensified during June 2020 when a group of alumni calling themselves 'DF Malan Must Fall' joined the fray. Their stated objective was to agitate for a name change and to address the 'institutional racism' at the school. In June 2020, the SGB began a process that would allow it to determine if the school's symbols, including its anthem and name, should be changed, as well as the cost implications thereof. Since the Schools Act does not prescribe a procedure for the changing of a school's name, the governing body was at sea concerning the issue and had to do its best to devise a fair process to enable consultation with stakeholders. All it had to rely on were circulars from the Department of Education and the Federation of Governing Bodies for South African Schools (Fedsas). Significantly, both circulars presumed that the governing body had the authority to change the school's name. A departmental circular, while instructing governing bodies to submit names to the provincial education department to enable it to check whether other schools bore the same name, expressly stated that a governing body's authority to change a school's name was beyond question. The Fedsas circular reminded governing bodies that changing a school's name was a sensitive matter and cautioned that wide consultation with all stakeholders, including parents, teachers, learners and the broader community, had to inform any decisions regarding a school's symbols, including its name, motto or emblem. Varied responses It was then suggested that the governing body create an ad hoc steering committee to oversee the consultation process and advise on potential new names or symbols. On 22 June 2020, the governing body wrote to all parents, students, alumni, and school staff on its database, informing them of its decision to begin a process to reconsider the school's name and symbols. The letter elicited a variety of responses, with some expressing misgivings about a name change, others supporting it and some making suggestions about the process that should be followed. The SGB then appointed an independent facilitator, Dr Jan Frederick Marais, a theologian of the Ecumenical Board of Stellenbosch University's Theology Faculty, and a renowned mediation expert, and thereafter a steering committee. Chairperson of the governing body Andre Roux asserted that although the steering committee members were advised to focus discussions on the school's symbols and identity, they were not instructed to prohibit discussions on the school's name. A draft report was eventually compiled and while everybody agreed with the school's core values as formulated by Dr Marais, three steering committee members disagreed with the decision to change the school's name. They were Veronica van Zyl, Mette Warnich – who also filed affidavits in support of the appeal application – and Gert Visser. On Marais's advice, a new task team was thereafter formed to advise the governing body on the formulation of a consultative process with stakeholders; criteria against which proposed new names could be evaluated; and the financial implications of a name change. The task team decided that invitations should be sent to all persons on the school's database to propose new names. After the invitations to comment were sent in April 2021, 626 of the recipients responded – 301 proposing that the name DF Malan be retained and 325 suggesting new names. However, the SGB decided that only two of the four names submitted by the task team were acceptable, namely Protea Akademie and DF Akademie. In a vote, DF Akademie won 85%. The appellants in the case took issue with several points. They claimed SGBs did not have the authority to change a school's name, that the SGB departed from the procedure it originally shared with the school community, stifled debate and failed to properly consult on the name change. The SCA judgment dismissed the complaints. 'I find that in changing the school's name, the governing body was acting within the ambit of its implied powers in terms of the Schools Act; that the procedure it adopted to consult interested parties was comprehensive, fair and rational; and that the decision to change the school's name was taken with due regard to, and rationally connected to the information before it. The appeal must therefore fail,' it read. DM
