EFF makes request for free venue to carry out Madlanga commission
The commission, set to begin this month, will investigate explosive allegations by KwaZulu- Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi implicating among other top officials, now- suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu
In its letter, the EFF argues the country has already spent too much money on previous commissions, including the state capture inquiry.
[WATCH] The Madlanga Commission: Meet the legal and investigative team
EFF member of Parliament (MP) Mazwi Blose said they have offered alternatives.
'We are being proactive because we draw inspiration, or we draw lessons from the Zondo commission. We really wasted close to a billion rand of State money, that could have been utilised better in providing services for our people.'
Blose said they must find a venue that will not cost taxpayers money.
'Let's go find a venue which is not going to cost taxpayers money, and which is actually going to be free, because state institutions do have venues, we've got community halls, civic centres, public works, we've got facilities that must be made available.'
READ MORE
• Madlanga inquiry: Application for evidence to be heard in-camera won't be granted easily
• Madlanga Commission of Inquiry to work hard to meet deadlines set by Ramaphosa
• Judicial commission of inquiry probing criminality in justice system to begin in August
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Shivambu: EFF's disruptive behaviour in Parliament was childish' and ‘senseless,' that's why l left
Former Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) deputy president Floyd Shivambu says he was never comfortable with the party's disruptive behaviour in Parliament during his decade-long tenure, calling it 'childish' and without purpose. Image: Phando Jikelo Former Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) deputy president Floyd Shivambu says he was never comfortable with the party's disruptive behaviour in Parliament during his decade-long tenure, calling it 'childish' and without purpose. Shivambu, who is now the national convenor of the Mayibuye Consultation Process, said on Thursday that even if the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party had not existed, he would have still left the EFF. 'One of the things I was not comfortable with throughout my 10 years in Parliament was the culture of disruption and rootedness that characterised those we served with,' he said during an event in Midrand. 'All of those things were just planned, like in a childish way, with no purpose.' Shivambu, who served as EFF deputy president since the party's formation in 2013, left the red berets last year in August to join the MK Party. However, upon his arrival at the party, it emerged that many members did not support him, and his time there was short-lived. Shivambu's name was excluded from the party's parliamentary list after his dramatic removal as secretary-general. His dismissal as secretary general followed a controversial Easter trip to Malawi, where he attended a church service led by fugitive preacher Shepherd Bushiri. 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 ✕ MK Party leader Jacob Zuma later announced that Shivambu would be redeployed to Parliament, but that never materialised. Instead, he found himself sidelined. Although Shivambu briefly joined the MK Party, he left within a short period, citing misalignment with its direction. He has since launched the Mayibuye Consultation Process, a national engagement campaign with church leaders and community stakeholders to explore forming a new political party. Shivambu has been critical of the EFF's tactics in the legislature, accusing the leadership of orchestrating disruptions that served no strategic or tactical value. 'Sometimes even when there are areas of agreement, we would realise that on this question we can agree. So why don't we sit down and reach consensus, and then raise our issues robustly?' he said. 'But the instruction would be, 'No, today we're going to disrupt.'' He claimed the disruptions were not spontaneous but were planned behind closed doors. 'It was not something that happened spontaneously. It was planned in a meeting, and I can tell you now there was only one person who initiated the disruptions - it was not the leadership collectively.' He suggested this approach was mistaken for radicalism. 'That was mistaken to be the so-called militancy and radicalism. And we kept asking, 'How does this relate to voters on the ground, or to the people that sent us here?'' Shivambu argued that such behaviour had contributed to the party's loss of support in the last election. 'There were 600,000 fewer people who voted for that organisation because they realised, 'We sent you to represent us there, but you are grandstanding.'' He said his departure, along with that of other members, stemmed from these concerns. 'Even if there was no MK Party or any other alternatives, we were going to disassociate. We raised it internally: What is the strategic value? What is the tactical value, even, of wanting to be disruptive?' He also said that the EFF's younger members were adopting this confrontational style without understanding its consequences. 'The saddest thing is that the younger generations associating with that organisation, even in councils and legislatures, just go and disrupt for no reason. They engage in violence and believe that's being revolutionary because the leader says so. 'What kind of revolution is that? That's disruption, even when it's senseless.' Shivambu said his proposed party, Mayibuye iAfrika, would not follow that model. 'One of the things that will never define Mayibuye is disruption. We will engage robustly. We will tell the truth, we will tell no lies, and we will claim no easy victories - but we will not be disruptive for the sake of it.' IOL Politics
The Herald
6 hours ago
- The Herald
ANC members no longer allowed to chant 'Kill the Boer', says Mbalula
ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula says party members are no longer allowed to chant 'Kill the Boer'. Mbalula was briefing the media on Wednesday about the outcomes of the party's national executive committee (NEC) meeting. 'As the ANC, we sang that song, but no member of the ANC today will be allowed to sing 'Kill the Boer',' he said. 'Simple as that. 'Even if the Constitutional Court said you can sing it, why should we sing 'Kill the Boer' in a democratic dispensation?' The song dates back to the anti-apartheid movement and was used as a protest song against the Afrikaner-dominated government. The EFF continues to sing the song, while civil rights organisation AfriForum argues that the song incites harm and hatred towards Afrikaners. However, the courts have ruled that it does not constitute hate speech. 'We sang the song because we were fighting the commandos when we infiltrated the country from Limpopo. They deployed the Boers and commandos to kill the [MK] guerrillas as we infiltrated the country. From Angola and in the front-line states, we sang 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer' to infiltrate the country and come inside to fight,' said Mbalula.
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
AmaBhungane bids to challenge the Public Procurement Act
Procurement is the ground-zero of corruption and State Capture – that's why we are heading for the Constitutional Court. It's unlikely that you'll open any newspaper or scroll through a news website these days without seeing an article about corruption in a government tender process. Just this week, we read about how the CEO of Independent Development Trust tried to quash a story by promising Daily Maverick investigative journalist Pieter-Louis Myburgh that they could facilitate tenders for him and his contacts, and about how an ANC leader and KwaZulu-Natal Education MEC Sipho Hlomuka feels that criticisms about his wives benefiting from government tenders are an attempt to target him politically. Corruption has become endemic to South African public life, and procurement – the process by which government contracts for goods and services – is the abused cash-cow that feeds political and personal greed. We all know it. AmaBhungane has reported on procurement-related corruption since it was founded. We have highlighted everything from the Arms Deal payoffs to the pillaging of SOEs revealed by the #GuptaLeaks and Joburg's dodgy water tanker contracts. Every week, we receive tip-offs about irregular tenders and how certain people are benefiting from their proximity to those with political power and their largesse in awarding contracts big and small, or other benefits, such as funding. Advocate Andy Mothibi, head of the Special Investigating Unit, has said that up to 90% of the cases the SIU is investigating involve procurement-related corruption. Former Chief Justice Raymond Zondo dedicated much of his lengthy report on State Capture to procurement. He questioned how those responsible for creating and enforcing legislation and other systems to regulate procurement could have been so ineffective in curbing corruption. Was it because corruption is now embedded in the system – and both politicians and bureaucrats are positioned to distribute benefits not to the populace, but to the powerful? Because, despite it being impossible to ignore the scale of procurement-related corruption and the complete inability of our existing systems to stop it, South Africa's legislature and public administration were happy to sign off on a new procurement law that repeats the failings of the old system and does little to respond to the very real observations of former Chief Justice Zondo and others who painstakingly identified where those systems needed to be strengthened. Was it simply that Parliament and National Treasury could not be bothered to reimagine an effective procurement system that delivered efficiently and equitably and was structured to promote maximum transparency and accountability to expose and deter corruption? Or was it because any possibility of 'turning off the taps to tender corruption', as Judge Zondo so neatly put it, would hurt them all financially and politically? We have been following, participating in and writing on the development of the Public Procurement Act since 2020. At every possible stage, we have voiced our deep concerns that the system the Act creates does not contain sufficient safeguards. We fumed when Parliament rushed through the Bill before last year's elections, furious at the laughably short timeframes the MPs had to consider the draft Bill and the public submissions. We formally wrote to the President and asked him to consider sending the Bill back to the National Assembly to address what we (and our colleagues in the Procurement Reform Working Group) described as patently unconstitutional provisions. We were ignored. And now, supported by the Legal Resources Centre, we have applied to join the cases brought by the Premier of the Western Cape and the City of Cape Town to challenge the passing of the Act. This case is a narrow challenge, focusing on the procedure through which Parliament passed the Act and its failure to meaningfully facilitate public participation. As it concerns only whether Parliament acted constitutionally, it is a matter that can be heard only by the Constitutional Court. We still believe the content of the Act is flawed and unconstitutional – particularly in how it fails to create constitutionally compliant transparency and accountability systems – but in this case, our focus is on highlighting why Parliament's failings are fatal to the Act. In our founding affidavit, filed this week, we highlight our experience participating in the legislative process. We explain how representatives from National Treasury were responsible for collating the public submissions and presenting commentary on those submissions to Parliament – and how they admitted that they had considered only about 30% of the submissions received. We explain how one key chapter in the Bill – that on preferential procurement – was added after the submissions were received and so received no meaningful public engagement in the National Assembly. We explain how the MPs on the Standing Committee on Finance held oral hearings on the Bill only one day after receiving the written submissions from the public, and that even the Chair of the National Council of Provinces expressed concern that the Bill was being rushed through Parliament before the 2024 elections. We explain how key issues raised in the public submissions were merely 'noted' by MPs and never engaged with. We submit that the Bill should never have been passed in the way it was and that Parliament clearly violated its constitutional obligations to ensure the public has a meaningful opportunity to influence the content of legislation. To us, this is an existential fight. The country cannot accommodate the current level of corruption in our public administration and cannot allow these levels to become normal and unremarked on. The Public Procurement Act takes a 'business as usual' approach: granting officials excessive discretion, resisting the medicine of transparency and relying excessively on the Treasury to police the system – an approach that has demonstrably failed. Crucially, the Act fails to provide strong mechanisms for proactive disclosure of procurement information to enable monitoring for the public interest. This perpetuates the dark fog in government procurement, making it a ripe environment for abuse. We at amaBhungane refuse to accept that corruption is simply the route to doing business with the state, and we will continue to challenge the procurement frameworks that facilitate and legitimise this form of business. Our application to join the cases challenging the manner in which the Act was adopted is merely the next (big) step in our long journey.
