DA's exit from National Dialogue ‘political point-scoring,' and undermines the GNU, Says SACP
Image: Itumeleng English / Independent Newspapers
The attitude of the DA of withdrawal from the upcoming National Dialogue is part of its general strategy to 'weaponise' government processes and its membership of the GNU to score political points for its own benefit.
This is according to the South African Communist Party that noted the challenges between the ANC and the DA as key role players in the GNU with concern.
'Although the position of the SACP towards the current configuration of the GNU has consistently been that of principled criticism, it is still our view that political instability in the working of government is undesirable and does not serve in any way the citizens of the country that await leadership and services from government,' SACP spokesperson Mbulelo Mandlana told IOL News.
Mandlana said the SACP believes that a sustainable political solution must be found for a stable political environment.
SACP's general secretary Solly Mapaila has been a vocal critic of the GNU, which includes the DA, arguing that it does not represent the interests of black people.
After its long criticism, the SACP has since announced that it will contest the upcoming 2026 local government elections independently, but not leaving the tripartite alliance would the ANC and COSATU.
However, the ANC has pushed back against this move.
'For the SACP the alliance political platform remains the most suitable mechanism to unpack the challenges in the GNU and build a shared strategy and lasting solutions to the challenges facing the government,' Mandlana said.
'The South African revolution can ill-afford a continued instability or appearance of instability in its government administration.'
This comes after the DA recently announced its withdrawal from the National Dialogue, just days after President Cyril Ramaphosa fired former deputy minister Andrew Whitfield, for travelling to the US without the president's permission.
IOL News previously reported that former President Mbeki, in a 10 page open letter, criticised the DA for its decision to withdraw from the upcoming National Dialogue, calling the move 'misplaced and very strange', and accused the DA of acting 'against its own very direct interests.'
However, DA leader John Steenhuisen has hit back at Mbeki's criticism, saying that the party would not participate in what he described as "another expensive talk shop" that would do nothing to improve people's lives.
'You sought my indulgence and now I must ask that you commit time for me to explain the DA's decision to stay away from yet another enormously expensive process that will predictably involve a lot of talking, but do nothing to advance open, transparent and corruption-free governance that South Africans so desperately desire,' Steenhuisen said.
Steenhuisen also pointed out what he called a 'double standard' in how ANC ministers have been treated compared to the DA's deputy minister, Whitfield.
He also criticised the dialogue's timing and origins, pointing out that Mbeki only called for it after the ANC's poor showing in recent elections. Suggesting it was a political move to regain lost support.
Asked about the DA's stance, Mandlana said the SACP is also concerned about the recent changes to the National Dialogue, including Mbeki's withdrawal from the preparatory process.
'We believe these changes will not serve the objective of a truly transformational, inclusive and effective dialogue that leads to change instead it is a recipe for a government inclined process with bureaucratic characteristics with no popular and people centred outcomes.'
Mandlana said the DA's actions reflect a broader political strategy.
'The attitude of the DA towards the National Dialogue, including its threat of withdrawal from it, are part of its general strategy to weaponise government processes and its membership of the GNU to score political points for its own benefit with little to no regard for the consequences of its actions the people of South Africa,' he told IOL News.
[email protected]
IOL Politics
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The South African
2 hours ago
- The South African
I want a three-way with Putin and Zelensky, says Trump on pending meeting
US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he was planning a second meeting with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin soon after Friday's Alaska summit – this time with Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelensky included. Trump is due to sit down with Putin in Anchorage on Friday, the first meeting between the Russian leader and a sitting US president since 2021. 'If the first one goes okay, we'll have a quick second one,' he told reporters. 'I would like to do it almost immediately, and we'll have a quick second meeting between president Putin and president Zelensky and myself, if they'd like to have me there.' The high-stakes talks come with Trump seeking to broker an end to Russia's nearly three-and-a-half year war in Ukraine, and Zelensky and his European allies have urged the Republican to push for a ceasefire. A stepped-up Russian offensive, and the fact Zelensky has not been invited to the Anchorage meeting Friday, have heightened fears that Trump and Putin could strike a deal that forces painful concessions on Ukraine. Trump said Russia would face 'very severe consequences' if Putin did not agree to end the war after Friday's meeting, without elaborating. The US leader promised dozens of times during his 2024 election campaign to end the war on his first day in office but has made scant progress towards brokering a peace deal. He threatened 'secondary sanctions' on Russia's trading partners over its invasion of Ukraine but his deadline for action came and went last week with no action announced. Trump told reporters he'd had a 'very good call' with European leaders including Zelensky as he took questions from reporters at an arts event at Washington's Kennedy Center. 'I would rate it at 10. You know – very, very friendly,' he said. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news. © Agence France-Presse
The Citizen
4 hours ago
- The Citizen
Zuma and MK party file urgent court bid to challenge Ramaphosa's Mchunu decision
The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. Former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party have not given up the fight and have lodged an urgent application against President Cyril Ramaphosa in the High Court in Pretoria. The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. What Zuma wants In the notice of motion, Zuma and his party want the high court to declare Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave. They also want the appointment of Wits law Professor Feroz Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry to be declared invalid, null and void and unconstitutional and set aside. ConCourt ruling The ConCourt on 31 July 2025 ruled that the application does not engage the court's jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in its matter against Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa's lawyer Kate Hofmeyr argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited. 'This matter does not fall within this court's exclusive jurisdiction. Very few matters do, and this is not one of them. 'Any allegation that the power was exercised unlawfully falls under our constitutional scheme to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to consider first. Additionally, there is no pressing need for this court, on 10 days' notice, to decide the issues in this matter as a court of first and last instance,' Hofmeyr said. This basically means that Zuma and the MK party had to approach the high court first, which they have now done. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS] The court ruling was handed down two hours after it hosted a special ceremonial sitting for retiring Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, whom Ramaphosa appointed to chair a commission to probe explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) top cop Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanzi of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system. Constitutional matter In his founding affidavit to the high court, Zuma said he is bringing the application in his personal capacity, but because the application is urgent and in the 'interest of justice' he is also deposing the papers on behalf of the MK party. 'The twin purposes of this application are to re-assert the merits of the application which were left unadjudicated by the Constitutional Court on account of its findings on exclusive jurisdiction and direct access; and to raise new grounds of illegality and irrationality based on events which arose post the 30 July 2025 hearing in the Constitutional Court,' Zuma argues. Zuma said that the present application is indisputably a constitutional matter. Section 169(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that the High Court of South Africa may decide any constitutional matter except a matter that the Constitutional Court has agreed to hear by way of direct access or is assigned by legislation to another court of a status similar to the High Court. 'This is such a matter because the Constitutional Court, rightly or in my view wrongly, declined to grant direct access. That decision must be respected as a fact until or unless it is set aside,' Zuma said. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party accuse ConCourt of ignoring 'most serious' violations by Ramaphosa Urgency In his papers, Zuma argues that in his Constitutional Court application, Ramaphosa did not contest the urgency, exclusive jurisdiction, and/or direct access. 'The president sought and was allowed to opportunistically hide behind those technicalities to escape much-needed judicial accountability for the unjustifiable multiple breaches of the rule of law. There are no more hiding places. 'The serious and unprecedented revelations of alleged criminality made by Lieutenant-General Mkhwanazi, as another highly qualified whistleblower, in the tradition of former Intelligence Chief Arthur Fraser, can no longer be ignored or swept under the carpet at the request of the president,' Zuma argued. Zuma explains that the urgency of the application is 'clearly not self-created, and it can never be reasonably asserted that relief may be obtained in due course.' 'The impugned commission has already commenced and continues to operate at huge cost to the taxpayer. In the (unlikely) event of its delivering a final report in six months' time, the matter would still not have been heard in due course.' Cachalia Zuma also argues that Cachalia has since assumed office and will be 'making decisions which affect the security of the people of South Africa' while Mchunu 'who has been illegally placed on leave of absence by the president continues to earn a salary and enjoy other expensive privileges such as bodyguards, drivers, free ministerial accommodation, air travel domestic workers and the like.' 'It is trite that the matter involves very serious and unprecedented allegations of executive and judicial capture which, if true, constitute a threat to the very democracy prevailing in South Africa. 'It is impossible to imagine a greater catastrophe than that which would transpire if the allegations are true and the matter is not heard as one of the utmost urgency. In relation to the question of urgency, the merits must be regarded as true and proven,' Zuma argues. Senzo Mchunu Zuma also argues that there is 'no express legal provision which empowers Ramaphosa to place a minister on leave of absence. 'The respondents can therefore only rely on an implied power which is said to flow from the power to dismiss. 'It will be argued that the decision does not pass the reasonable necessity test because the power to dismiss in section 91(2) must not be confused with the power to dismiss an employee,' he said. 'Financial benefit' Zuma said the appointment of Cachalia is 'totally incoherent' and false explanations given by Ramaphosa in 'respect of this decision owe to the fact that it is rooted in improper motives and bad faith'. 'Its purpose if to grant undue financial benefits to Minister Mchunu at the expense of the taxpayer and to shield him from accountability and well-deserved dismissal or removal from the Cabinet. 'In explaining this appointment, the president has performed both somersaults and backflips in a series of incompatible volte face manoeuvres, all pointing to sheer irrationality,' Zuma argued. In his papers, Zuma argued that following the swearing in of the acting police minister, both Ramaphosa and Cachalia gave media interviews, with differing accounts of his official title and status. Questions to Ramaphosa Zuma's attorneys sent a letter to Ramaphosa on 4 August 2025, posing 15 unanswered questions regarding his actions and justifications. Zuma said Ramaphosa's response was 'inadequate'. 'Given the public importance of the issues and the imminence of the 1 August date for the assumption of office by Professor Cachalia, the matter cries out for direct access.' ALSO READ: Zuma demands Ramaphosa resign by Friday, or else… Madlanga Commission Zuma also argues that there is no legal provision which is capable of endowing the president with the power to confer upon the Madlanga Commission the powers which are reserved to the Judicial Service and/or Magistrates' Commissions, to investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of members of the judiciary. 'There are specific and well-accepted policy reasons why such powers are exclusively reserved for the bodies referred to above. These include the preservation of the independence, dignity and effectiveness of the judiciary.' The matter is expected to heard on 26 August 2025. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
eNCA
4 hours ago
- eNCA
ActionSA deploys two seniors to observe and monitor National Dialogue
CAPE TOWN - Unresolved questions raised by key stakeholders and the broader public have led to growing concerns surrounding the National Dialogue convention. This had led to the withdrawal of several NGOs, interest groups and political parties that were meant to be participating. Central to the impasse is the budget allocation for the convention. ActionSA Parliamentary Leader Athol Trollip had a discussion with eNCA's Gareth Edwards and shared his party's standpoint on the upcoming National Dialogue
