Defiant Nkabane snubs higher education committee meeting
'Allow me to tender my apology to you and the entire committee in this regard,' Nkabane wrote.
Letsie said he responded on the same day, making clear her apology was not accepted. He told her the meeting of the committee was a priority.
'The constitution mandates that members of the cabinet are accountable, collectively and individually, to parliament for their actions. Your presence in the meeting on Friday is critical for the committee to fulfil its constitutional oversight mandate.
'I request that you kindly reconsider your decision not to attend the meeting on July 18 based on the matters raised above. It is not my intention to seek alternative means within the legislative framework to compel you to come to the meeting,' Letsie wrote to Nkabane.
He said she wrote back on Thursday requesting that he reconsider his decision. She claimed she was required to attend a stakeholder engagement focused on GBV prevention and awareness and leadership capacity development within the higher education and training sector.
'The GBV engagement involving student leaders, institutions, civil society organisations and the department addresses one of the most serious and systemic challenges affecting our post-schooling institutions, specially young women.
'The minister made the prevention of GBV a strategic and moral priority within the post-school education and training sector, consistent with government's broader commitment. I acknowledge and do not diminish the importance of the committee's follow-up deliberations concerning the appointment process of SETA accounting authority chairpersons. I remain ready to appear to clarify and fully account on the matter,' she said when requesting an alternative date for the committee sitting.
Nkabane said her request was made in good faith and not as an act of avoidance. She said should the committee feel compelled to explore the use of other mechanisms, such as a subpoena, she requested that it note the public expenditure committed towards the GBV programme would be rendered wasteful.
'An outcome I believe we all seek to avoid,' she said.
TimesLIVE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
an hour ago
- The Citizen
When politicians and criminals blur lines
The presence of politicians near murder suspects and failure to act on Zondo's report signal deep systemic decay. Two recent events highlighted a perceived intermingling of South African politicians with the criminal underworld – and the ANC's utter inability to fix this. The first event was Kenny Kunene pitching up at the home of a murder suspect at the centre of a web of alleged politically tainted criminality. The second was former chief justice Raymond Zondo's critique of President Cyril Ramaphosa's failure to implement recommendations of the commission of inquiry into state capture. Kunene's stated reasons for being at Katiso Molefe's home were implausible to radio, TV and social media audiences. Even his long-time friend and political boss, fellow ex-convict Gayton McKenzie, knew the position was indefensible. ALSO READ: Why the ANC remains a safe haven for corruption Molefe was mentioned in KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi's media conference on 6 July, where allegations were made about senior police machinations. Molefe should have been off-bounds for any media-savvy politician. Kunene has not only reinforced the common perception that politicians are not to be trusted. It goes deeper. In an environment where whistle-blowers are slain with impunity, the link to a murder suspect could give rise to more sinister inferences. Impunity is also at the heart of Zondo's concerns, where he detailed failures of the justice system. As chief justice, he found it painful to swear-in Cabinet ministers who had serious state capture findings against them. ALSO READ: Now we wait for accountability, Mr Mayor 'It was like the president was saying: 'I don't care what you have found about these people. I think they are good enough to be promoted.'' Zondo's words are a vote of no confidence in Ramaphosa by arguably the most respected judge in the country. Zondo lacks faith that crooks will be brought to book under Ramaphosa's presidency. Indeed, in South Africa, most culprits get away with murder and much else. Only around 6.8% of murder cases with arrests lead to convictions. In many cases, there are no arrests. So, the percentage of murder convictions per total number of murders (with and without arrests) will be lower. This picture contributes to the impunity with which criminals, including politicians, operate. In every sphere, crooks carry on because they know the chances of being convicted are slim. Proper implementation of Zondo's recommendations would have changed this perception. ALSO READ: The real national dialogue has begun On Monday, the Presidency reported 'significant progress' in implementing reforms. Ramaphosa claimed 48% completion of actions from Zondo's recommendations, adding that high-profile cases are scheduled for 2025-26. Given the lack of success in cases thus far, it is hardly reassuring to hear that cases are pending. Where are the significant arrests? Why did Ramaphosa choose for his Cabinet from people implicated in Zondo's report? Zondo has every right to feel disappointed. After sitting for four years, hearing 300 witnesses, producing 8 655 530 pages of documents and spending R1 billion of taxpayers' money, implicating more than 1 438 people, his team felt 'their efforts were for nothing'. Many South Africans will agree. Why are so many of the people implicated in the Zondo report now sitting in parliament instead of being in court or in jail? ALSO READ: RET faction gains ground as Ramaphosa falters And ex-con politicians link themselves to murder suspects. When politicians and criminals are indistinguishable from each other and the underworld are overlords, it's time to revolt.
Mail & Guardian
21 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
The mask of apartheid
The new apartheid is decentralised, encrypted in algorithms, and cloaked in the language of economic rationality and legal formalism and it's not only in South Africa. Photo: File Despite South Africa's transition to democracy in 1994, apartheid has quietly entrenched itself within the private sphere. While the responsibility of managing the state lies in public hands, real power increasingly resides in private institutions and markets. Today, privilege is governed by price. The market now sets the boundaries of opportunity. Financial barriers have replaced legal ones as instruments of exclusion. Something as simple as an application form is often accompanied by a fee — a form of economic regulation. These financial mechanisms now perform the same function once carried out by explicitly racist laws. Surcharges, income thresholds, qualification criteria and premium pricing have become the new tools of modern segregation. Apartheid persists not just in memory, but in the cost of a car, a house, a job, a university placement, a medical aid scheme, an insurance policy, or a loan. Where the state once enforced exclusion through law, private actors now enforce it through economics. Policing racial statutes was costly — politically, morally and financially. Financial exclusion, by contrast, appears neutral and carries no overt moral burden. By replacing legal barriers with economic ones, segregation has shifted from being a public burden to a private one, shielded from constitutional scrutiny and public accountability. Unlike the centrally governed apartheid state, this new system of exclusion is maintained by a decentralised network of private actors. Although many apartheid-era laws were abolished after 1994, apartheid endures in South Africa's common law — particularly in the law of contract and property — which continue to structure economic relations and access to resources. Law is not merely a matter of statute; it is embedded in legal practice, judicial culture and precedent. Apartheid, therefore, survives not only in what the law says, but in how the law is applied. It lives outside the statutory framework — in the everyday transactions that define who belongs, who benefits and who is left out. This entrenchment of exclusion has also been accelerated by digital technologies. The rise of surveillance systems and racial categorisation tools — foundational pillars of the apartheid state — has been replicated through data-driven infrastructures. Unlike apartheid-era mechanisms, these technologies exist largely beyond South Africa's control. Their global proliferation coincided with the country's transition to democracy but ultimately complicated that transition. Technological segregation now operates through algorithms — mechanisms that appear neutral but function with embedded bias. These algorithms reshape the public sphere, determine access to essential services such as credit, healthcare, education and employment, and quietly reproduce systems of exclusion by amplifying existing inequalities. For instance, biased data sets and opaque decision-making processes can disproportionately deny marginalised groups access to loans, jobs or even housing. As the economy became increasingly digitised and financialised, power shifted further away from the democratic state toward international tech and financial corporations that control these platforms and infrastructures. These corporations operate with limited accountability, often beyond the reach of national regulatory frameworks, further entrenching inequality. In this way, apartheid has been encrypted into a new, digitised form — a system where exclusion is maintained not by explicit laws, but through coded algorithms and data-driven governance that perpetuate racial and economic divides. Since 1994, apartheid has become fractalised. Once visible on grand, institutional scales, its logic now manifests in smaller, more diffuse forms. What was once a centralised system of segregation is now scattered across everyday life — in housing, education, employment and finance. This fractalisation makes apartheid easier to survive, but harder to see. Its invisibility renders it more difficult to confront, allowing structural inequality to persist under the guise of normalcy. The system of apartheid and exclusion is not confined to South Africa's borders. In occupied Palestine, similar structures of racial and economic segregation are enforced through a combination of state power and private interests. Here, apartheid is maintained not only through physical barriers like walls and checkpoints but also through economic control, land confiscation, and pervasive surveillance technologies, many developed and sold by global corporations. This entanglement of public authority and private capital in Palestine echoes South Africa's experience, highlighting how modern apartheid adapts across contexts. It reveals a transnational pattern in which racial domination is sustained through intertwined legal, economic, and technological systems, perpetuating dispossession and inequality on a global scale. Legally, the persistence of apartheid in its modern, privatised form reflects deep continuities in South Africa's legal system. While apartheid-era statutes were formally repealed, the foundational principles embedded in common law — particularly in property, contract, and corporate law — continue to structure economic and social relations in ways that reproduce racialised inequality. These legal doctrines were developed to protect wealth, land, and capital accumulation for a privileged few and remain largely unchallenged in courts today. Moreover, judicial culture and precedent frequently uphold these doctrines under the guise of neutrality and formal equality, masking the structural biases they perpetuate. Without a fundamental transformation of the legal order, beyond mere statutory reform, to interrogate and dismantle the inherited values and practices that sustain exclusion, the law risks becoming a silent enabler of privatised apartheid rather than an instrument of justice and redress. Apartheid has not ended; it has evolved and multiplied its forms. No longer enforced solely through overt laws and state apparatus, it now thrives in the interstices of market mechanisms, digital technologies and legal frameworks that appear neutral but remain deeply exclusionary. Recognising these continuities and transformations is essential if we are to confront and dismantle the systemic inequalities that persist in South Africa and beyond. Only through holistic efforts that address economic structures, technological governance, and the very foundations of our legal system can we hope to realise the democratic promise of equality and justice at home and in solidarity with those, like Palestinians. Sõzarn Barday is a writer and attorney based in South Africa and has a particular interest in human rights within the Middle East. Opinions shared represent her individual perspective.
Eyewitness News
a day ago
- Eyewitness News
Trollip says ActionSA aware uphill battle in efforts to scrap deputy ministers ahead
CAPE TOWN - ActionSA parliamentary leader Athol Trollip said the party understands it will face an uphill battle in its efforts to have deputy ministers scrapped from Cabinet. The party has announced the Constitution Twenty-Second Amendment Bill, seeking to overhaul the size of the country's executive. ALSO READ: ActionSA's Trollip: Deputy ministers are redundant doormen and doorwomen for their ministers ActionSA said the Cabinet is bloated with 32 Ministers and 43 Deputy Ministers. This follows President Cyril Ramaphosa's appointment of Professor Firoz Cachalia as acting minister, an outsider, despite there being two deputy ministers in the ministry. Trollip said they have a big mountain to climb trying to pass the bill. "We will have to get 2/3 support in Parliament, and it's obvious that parties that are in the GNU [Government of National Unity] that are benefitting from Cabinet posts and deputy minister positions are unlikely to support it. But we will remind a number of those parties that when we were in opposition, they were very much pro in getting rid of deputy ministers and cutting the size of the Cabinet." He added that deputy ministers are a waste of taxpayers' money. "Also, we've looked at other countries with much bigger populations and much bigger economies where they run the country with no deputy ministers and 20 Cabinet ministers. So, we believe that we can run this country or should be running this country with 20 cabinet ministers and no deputy ministers."
