Operation Dudula to meet health minister Motsoaledi over foreigners' access to public healthcare
The anti-migrant group has been blocking undocumented foreigners from receiving medical care in public clinics and hospitals, claiming they are adding pressure to the already overburdened healthcare system.
The group said it is preparing to meet health minister Aaron Motsoaledi to discuss the issue and 'demand fair access to healthcare for South African citizens'.
'Our goal is clear: to protect our people's rights and ensure public services prioritise South Africans first.'
On Monday, Operation Dudula members attempted to shut down the Lilian Ngoyi Community Health Centre in Diepkloof.
'Our action was to highlight the growing concern around healthcare access for foreign nationals that is impacting our local communities.'
The campaign has received disapproval from the health department. Last week, three members of Operation Dudula were arrested for enforcing the campaign. They were released on bail on Monday.
Despite that, the group has vowed to continue blocking undocumented foreigners from accessing public healthcare facilities.
'Operation Dudula is taking a firm stand to protect South African public facilities for South African citizens and documented foreign nationals only.
'We will continue to intensify our campaign to ensure our resources are preserved for those who legally belong here. Public hospitals and other government services must serve South Africans first.
'We urge the government to support the cause and take decisive action to restore order and fairness.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
25 minutes ago
- Eyewitness News
Inside SA's multi-million rand plan to fill US funding void
Health minister Aaron Motsoaledi recently announced that National Treasury had released roughly R753-million to help plug the gap left by US funding cuts to South Africa's health system. Another R268-million is also being released in the following two years for researchers that lost their US grants. But this may only constitute the first round of emergency funds from government, according to sources we spoke to. The health department is planning to submit a bid for an additional allocation later on, which will be considered by Treasury. But this will likely only be approved if the first tranche of funding is appropriately used. So how is the money supposed to be used? To find out, we spoke with officials from the National Treasury, the National Department of Health and the South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC). MONEY FOR PROVINCES IS FOR SAVING JOBS AT GOVERNMENT CLINICS The current tranche of money comes from Treasury's contingency reserve, which exists partially to deal with unforeseen funding shortfalls. It was released in terms of Section 16 of the Public Finance Management Act. Of the R753-million that's been announced for this year, Motsoaledi stated that R590-million would be going to provincial health departments via the District Health Programme Grant - a conditional grant for funding the country's public health efforts, particularly HIV, TB, and other communicable diseases. Such conditional grants typically give the National Health Department more say over how provincial departments spend money than is the case with most other health funding in provinces.. To explain how government officials arrived at this figure, it's worth recapping what services the US previously supported within provinces. Prior to Donald Trump becoming US president on 20 January, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) had financed health programmes in specific districts with high rates of HIV. These districts were scattered across all South Africa's provinces, save for the Northern Cape. The funds were typically channelled by USAID to non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which used the money to assist the districts in two ways. The first is that NGOs would hire and deploy health workers at government clinics. The second is that the NGOs would run independent mobile clinics and drop-in centres, which assisted so-called key populations, such as men who have sex with men, sex workers, transgender people, and people who inject drugs. Following the US funding cuts, thousands of NGO-funded health workers lost their jobs at government clinics, while many of the health centres catering to key populations were forced to close. In response, the health department began negotiations with Treasury to get emergency funding to restore some of these services. As part of its application, the health department submitted proposals for each province, which specified how much money was needed and how it would be used. (Though this only took place after significant delay and confusion). Since Treasury couldn't afford to plug the entire gap left by the US funding cuts, the provincial-level proposals only requested money for some of the services that had been terminated. For instance, funding was not requested for the key populations health centres. Instead, the priority was to secure the jobs that had been lost at government health facilities. As such, the total amount that was requested from Treasury for each province was largely calculated by taking the total number of health workers that NGOs had hired at clinics and working out how much it would cost to rehire them for 12 months. Rather than paying the NGOs a grant to deploy these workers as was done by USAID, the health department proposed hiring them directly. This meant that they calculated their wages according to standard government pay scales which is less than what these workers would have earned from the NGOs. The total came to just under R1.2 billion for all the provinces combined. Treasury awarded roughly half of this on the basis that the money would be used to finance these wages for six months, rather than 12. This amounts to the R590-million for provinces that was announced by Motsoaledi. If all goes smoothly and this money is used effectively to hire these staff over the next six months, then a new tranche of Section 16 funding could be released in order to continue hiring them. Funds might also be released to fund the key populations health sites. A concern, however, is that the money may just be used by provinces to augment their ordinary budgets. If the funds aren't actually earmarked to respond to the US cuts, then it is much less likely that more emergency funding will be released. At this stage, it is too early to tell how provinces will use the money, particularly given that it appears that at least some of them haven't gotten it yet. Spotlight and GroundUp sent questions to several provincial health departments. Only the Western Cape responded. The province's MEC for Health and Wellness, Mireille Wenger, said that the funds have not yet been received by her department, but that once they were, they would be directed to several key priority areas, including digitisation of health records, and the strengthening of the primary healthcare system. It's thus not clear whether the province will be earmarking any of the funds to employ health staff axed by US-funded NGOs. In response to a question about this, Wenger stated that 'further clarity is still required from the National Department of Health and National Treasury regarding the precise provincial allocations and conditions tied to the additional funding'. WHAT ABOUT RESEARCH? Of the R753-million that's been released for this year, R132-million has been allocated to mitigate the funding cuts for research by US federal institutions, primarily the National Institutes for Health (NIH). Unlike USAID, the NIH is not an aid body. It provides grants to researchers who are testing new treatments and medical interventions that ultimately benefit everyone. These grants can be awarded to researchers in the US or abroad as part of a highly competitive application process. Researchers in South Africa are awarded a few billion rands worth of grants from the NIH each year, largely due to their expertise in HIV and TB. But over the last few months, much of this funding has been terminated or left in limbo. (See a detailed explanation of the situation here). The R132-million issued by Treasury is supposed to assist some of these researchers. It will be followed by another R268-million over the following two years. The Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust are chipping in an additional R100-million each – though in their case, the funds are being provided upfront. All of this money – R600 million in total – is being channelled to the SAMRC, which will release it to researchers via a competitive grant allocation system. According to SAMRC spokesperson Tendani Tsedu, they have already received the R132-million from Treasury, though they are still 'finalizing the processes with the Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust for receipt of [their donations]'. The SAMRC is also in negotiation with a French research body about securing more funds, though these talks are ongoing. In the meantime, the SAMRC has sent out a request for grant applications from researchers who have lost their US money. The memo states: 'Applicants may apply for funding support for up to 12 months to continue, wind down or complete critical research activities and sustain the projects until U.S. funding is resumed or alternative funds are sourced.' 'The plan,' Tsedu said, 'is to award these grants as soon as possible this year.' Professor Linda-Gail Bekker, CEO of the Desmond Tutu Health Foundation, told us that the hope is that the grants could fill some of the gaps. 'This is a bridge and it is certainly going to save some people's jobs, and some research,' she said, but 'it isn't going to completely fill the gap'. Indeed, the SAMRC has made clear that its grants aren't intended to replace the US funding awards entirely. This is unsurprising given that the money that's being made available is a tiny fraction of the total grant funding awarded by the NIH. It's unlikely that research projects will continue to operate as before, and will instead be pared down, said Bekker. 'It's going to be about getting the absolute minimum done so you either save the outcome, or get an outcome rather than no outcome,' she said. In other cases, the funds may simply 'allow you to more ethically close [the research project] down,' Bekker added. For some, this funding may also have come too late. Many researchers have already had to lay off staff. Additionally, patients who had been on experimental treatments may have already been transitioned back into routine care. It's unclear how such projects could be resumed months later. In response, Tsedu stated: 'For projects that have already closed as a result of the funding cuts, the principal investigator will need to motivate whether the study can be appropriately resurrected if new funds are secured.' The SAMRC has established a steering committee which will adjudicate bids. They will be considering a range of criteria, Tsedu said, including how beneficial the research might be for the South African health system, and how heavily the project was impacted by the US funding cuts. They will also consider how an SAMRC grant could 'be leveraged for future sustainability of the project, personnel or unit,' he said. AN ENDLESS BACK AND FORTH The job of the SAMRC steering committee will likely be made a lot more complicated by the erratic policy changes within the NIH. On 25 March, the body sent a memo to staff, – leaked to Nature and Bhekisisa – instructing them to hold all funding awards to researchers in South Africa. After this, numerous researchers in the country said they couldn't renew their grants. However, last month, Science reported that a new memo had been sent to NIH staff which said that while South African researchers still couldn't get new grants, active awards could be resumed. Since then, some funds appear to be trickling back into the country, but certainly not all. For instance, Spotlight and GroundUp spoke to one researcher who had two active NIH awards before the cuts. He stated that one of these was resumed last month, while the other is still paused. Bekker also told us that she had heard of one or two research grants being resumed in the last week, though she said the bulk of active awards to South Africa are still pending. 'Where people are the prime recipients [of an NIH grant] without a subawardee, there seems to be a queue and backlog but some [of those awards] are coming through,' said Bekker. 'But how long this is going to take and when it might come through we're waiting to hear.' She said a strategy might be to apply for the SAMRC bridging funding and 'if by some miracle the [NIH funding is resumed]' then researchers could then presumably retract their SAMRC application. In the meantime, health researchers will have to continue spending their time working out how to respond to the abrupt and increasingly confusing changes to funding guidelines that have dogged them since Trump assumed office. 'It's such a dreadful waste of energy,' said Bekker. 'If we were just getting on with the research, it would be so much better.' Co-published by Spotlight and GroundUp
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
A mom's plea: 'you can save my son'
With less than 200 000 South Africans registered as stem cell donors – and even fewer from Black communities – the odds are stacked against Black children. Bonakele never imagined that motherhood would mean becoming a full-time caregiver, medical advocate and voice for survival. But for the past two years, she's been fighting relentlessly for her two-year-old son, who has a rare genetic disease and whose life now depends on finding a matching stem cell donor. 'I knew something wasn't right from when he was just three months old,' she recalls. 'He had recurring boils, infections, and was always in and out of the clinic. But nothing prepared me for the diagnosis.' Her son was eventually diagnosed with Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome (WAS), a life-threatening condition that weakens the immune system and impairs blood clotting. Without treatment, most children don't survive into adulthood. 'I've already lost a child,' Bonakele says. 'I wake up every day with that memory in my heart and the fear that I could lose another. People ask how my son is doing, but they forget to ask how I'm doing. The truth is, I'm exhausted, I'm scared… but I have to stay strong for him.' A stem cell transplant is her son's best and only chance. When performed early – ideally before the age of five – it can offer a survival rate of over 90%. But the biggest challenge is finding a matching donor. 'This is why we're sharing Bonakele's story,' says Palesa Mokomele, Head of Community Engagement and Communications at DKMS Africa, a nonprofit dedicated to fighting blood cancers and blood disorders. 'A simple cheek swab could identify the match her son – and so many others.' 'I'm asking with everything in me,' says Bonakele. 'If you're healthy and between 17 and 55, please register. You could be the reason my son grows up, runs around with his friends, and has the chance to just be a child. This isn't just about him – it's about every parent waiting for that one person to say yes.' DKMS is an international non-profit organization dedicated to the fight against blood cancer. It was founded in Germany in 1991 by Dr Peter Harf. DKMS with over 1 200 employees has since relentlessly pursued the aim of giving as many patients as possible a second chance at life. It has over 12 million registered donors. Visit to register. A few minutes could save a life.
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The hidden costs of SAB's legacy on SA's most vulnerable communities
South African Breweries (SAB) recently purchased space in Daily Maverick to publish sponsored content, beginning with a piece appropriately titled '130 Years, SAB's Legacy Is South Africa's Story'. It's true: South Africa's story is closely interwoven with SAB's legacy as a South African alcohol producer and marketer, but it begs the question: Which parts of their legacy and our story are they proudest of? Let us consider a few. We have the world's highest rate of Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), with an average of 11 out of every 100 children born with this condition, and in some communities this rate goes up to 28% of children. Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder describes physical, behavioural and learning conditions that can occur in persons who were exposed to alcohol while in the womb. Depending on the severity, they are at risk of experiencing every challenge that makes it harder to grow up and be a useful, contributing member of our society. They are typically a burden to their mothers, families, teachers and peers. They risk dropping out of school, engaging in antisocial and criminal behaviour and of experiencing lifelong problems with substance abuse and addiction. Alcohol stunts and damages growing brains. There is no safe amount of alcohol to consume during pregnancy. Unplanned pregnancy Pregnant girls and women typically admit to drinking in the first three months of unexpected pregnancy, before they know that they are pregnant. In many instances, foetal alcohol effects are associated with teenage and unplanned pregnancy. Children who become pregnant are often engaged in illegal, underage drinking. Alcohol causes a loss of inhibitions. It is harder to make good decisions when drinking or drunk, and this increases vulnerability to opportunistic sexual advances or sexual violence. Alcohol warnings on packaging don't extend to girls and women who may be sexually active and not on contraception. Is this the legacy that SAB is proud to share with South Africa? They claim in the same sponsored content that they do good work to minimise some of these problems. Let us be clear, this is no more than a version of the arsonist firefighter, who sets the fire and then wants to be hailed a hero for putting it out. As is the case with fires, Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder is much easier to ignite than to douse. Recent studies estimate that alcohol contributes to 80% of deaths of young men in South Africa. We often refer to interpersonal and gender-based violence in South Africa as a 'hidden pandemic'. Alcohol is associated with almost all such incidents. The social and economic cost to the criminal justice system, the health system and other government programmes is overwhelming, with estimates of actual costs being between 8 and 10% of GDP. Is it this bit that SAB is proudest of? Or is it the link between alcohol, road crashes and deaths, including those of drunk pedestrians? Or the relationship between alcohol and sexually transmitted diseases? Or is that SAB's profitability partially depends on binge drinking? A total of 70% of in-school teenagers self-report that they have participated in binge drinking. Or that their brilliant innovations teach children to normalise a taste for alcohol, knowing that the younger they start, the more likely they are to binge drink as teenagers and to go on to have troubled relationships with alcohol, some for the rest of their lives? Or that 13% of all deaths in South Africa have a direct link to alcohol consumption? SAB has over time used our sporting heroes (the 'brand behind our boys' — and now our girls and women too), our national flag, and even the 'rain down in Africa', to advertise and associate itself with the aspirations of our young people, notably now girls, who have always tended to lag behind boys in consumption. SAB can afford to, when many others cannot, because it has made its products desirable and accessible to young people and new drinkers. While it is estimated that fewer than 40% of South African adults drink alcohol, those who do are the most prolific in Africa and are right up there with the world's biggest consumers of alcohol. The majority of drinkers drink beer. Many drinkers are dependent on alcohol and are customers for life. SAB has very publicly associated itself with and sponsored our law enforcement agencies in carefully worded 'don't drink and drive' campaigns, as though the only harm associated with alcohol is behind the steering wheel, thus implicitly encouraging the idea that it doesn't matter if you get drunk and commit acts of indecency, impropriety, violence or dangerous stupidity; just as long as you don't drive. Harsh reality It has massive billboards at our airports, on our roads and in our townships. Sadly, research and the harsh reality about alcohol are neither as attractive nor as addictive as SAB's products. While it is by no means only in poor communities that we see the impact of alcohol on individuals, families, businesses, community wellbeing and society as a whole, it is often the stories of the poor that are the most honest and heartbreaking. Stories about failure, neglect and abuse — and of deprivation of children where more disposable income is spent on alcohol than on staples and school shoes. SAB is dependent on these drinkers for its success. We are a society that struggles with an economy that is at best fragile. We need to spend a lot less on alcohol. To achieve this, we need much stricter policies and regulations about price, distribution, advertising and marketing to counter the powerful alcohol lobby. For the child born with severe foetal alcohol syndrome today, to a mother who didn't want her and cannot support her, and for her family and community, it is too late to make a difference. But for our collective future, it isn't too late. It is easy to understand why the alcohol industry lobby is so powerful, and why SAB continues to thrive, with its massive advertising, marketing and promotional spend, selling aspirations to a society in which the majority do not thrive. The reality that debunks the aspirational myths is there for all to see, but it's not a pretty picture, not a comfortable one, not one on which it is easy to dwell. We, the people of South Africa, should, however, not allow ourselves to be lulled into accepting that this is the best we can be; a by-product of a narrative written by SAB, with its legacy of profit and gain at the expense of the most vulnerable. DM
