WATCH: Malema not ‘intimidated' by Trump's call for his arrest
Malema said he would never stop singing a song that Winnie Mandela sang and it would be a betrayal to the struggle of 'our people'.
EFF leader Julius Malema addressing community members of Ward 16 in Koppies ahead of their bi-elections which will take place on the 28th of May 2025. Picture: X/@EFFSouthAfrica
EFF leader Julius Malema said he doesn't fear for his life after US president Donald Trump called his arrest.
Malema was addressing EFF supporters during a rally Ward 16, Koppies in the Free State on Africa Day on Sunday.
The EFF leader engaged with community members ahead of by elections in the area which is expected commence on the 28th of May.
'Kill Malema'
Malema said he would never be intimidated by Trump.
'Well, I'm not fearful. As a revolutionary, part of being killed is one of those honours you must wear with pride, but I'm not going to be reckless. When he says to Ramaphosa, why is this man not in jail, why are you not arresting this man? He simply means, why are you not killing this man, because this man wants to kill white people. That's what he believes.
'Imperialism, especially the USA, it makes such remarks meaning something different,' Malema said.
WATCH Malema speaking about Donald Trump calling for his arrest
♦️Must Watch♦️
The EFF President and Commander in Chief @Julius_S_Malema engaging with member of the media at Ward 16, Koppies in Free State.
The President strongly criticised President Ramaphosa and his delegation for their failure to defend the Constitution—particularly the… pic.twitter.com/4rX71Sk5Ea — Economic Freedom Fighters (@EFFSouthAfrica) May 25, 2025
ALSO READ: 'There is doubt in Trump's head about genocide in SA,' Ramaphosa says [VIDEO]
Malema said he would never be intimidated by America.
'I will never be intimidated by Donald Trump, Malema said. That nonsense that Trump did in America, he will never do that nonsense in my presence because I will confront him here and there, with the facts'!
Ramaphosa ambush
During the bilateral talks between Trump and President Cyril Ramaphosa on Wednesday, which played out before the media, the US president showed videos of Malema chanting 'Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer' to support his false belief in genocide against whites in the country, asking why the red berets leader has not been arrested.
Trump, proved to be a political rottweiler for Afrikaners and white farmers shifting the focus from what began as a cordial discussion with Ramaphosa but veered sharply off course to farm attacks in South Africa.
ALSO READ: WATCH: Donald Trump ambushes Cyril Ramaphosa in Oval Office
'Kill the Boer'
Malema said Ramaphosa could not present the facts in front Trump.
'I will never stop singing a song that Winnie Mandela sang. That would be a betrayal to the struggle of our people'.
Malema criticised Ramaphosa and his delegation for their failure to defend The constitution of South Africa, particularly the right to freedom of speech in the context of the 'Kill the Boer'.
On Saturday, after delivering the eulogy at the funeral of ANC Women's League deputy president Lungi Mnganga-Gcabashe, Ramaphosa said the issues raised by Trump at the Oval Office in Washington would be addressed in due course.
ALSO READ: Malatsi summoned to Parliament to explain Starlink policy directive
'EFF will never unite with Zuma'
Earlier, Malema vowed the red berets with never unite with former president Jacob Zuma's MK party also elaborating that he doesn't fear for his life after US president Donald Trump called his arrest.
Malema said the EFF will 'never unite with Zuma who wants to kill the EFF'.
'We'll never unite with MK that exist to destroy the EFF. We are not friends with the enemies of the EFF whether Trump says the same thing about the two of us, we don't care. We must never be tempted to unite with the agents who want to destroy the EFF'.
'If Zuma wants the unity of black people, why did he form MK when there was EFF, because you are already dividing people. You must join the existing organisation that pursues the same agenda which is the EFF. There is no unity they are talking about, they are pretentious about it. Zuma is about himself and about his family, that's why he went to form that spaza shop', Malema said.
'Double agents'
In November last year, Malema claimed the red berets had been infiltrated by double agents, with former founding members being turned and captured ahead of the national elective conference in December.
The EFF leader's embattled party has been hit with a leadership exodus, with big names, including Floyd Shivambu, Mzwanele Manyi, Busisiwe Mkhwebane and Dali Mpofu, crossing over to former president Zuma's MK party.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Ramaphosa to have second meeting with Trump at G7 Summit in Canada
The President said he would also have meetings with the chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, and the prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney. President Cyril Ramaphosa says he will have a meeting with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the Group of Seven (G7) Summit in Canada at the weekend. Speaking to reporters in Pretoria on Tuesday, Ramaphosa said he would also have separate meetings with the chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz, and the prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney. The G7 Summit will take place in Kananaskis, Canada, from 14 to 17 June. Canada, which holds the G7 presidency, invited Ramaphosa to the meeting. The President told reporters that attending the G7 was a 'great opportunity' from which Pretoria expected 'good outcomes'. 'I'm hoping that when we meet the various other leaders of various countries who are part of the G7, we'll be able to interact meaningfully with them.' He said the G7 Summit gave Pretoria the opportunity to 'propagate' its message about its G20 presidency and the 'great outcomes' it wanted to see in November. The US will take over the presidency of the G20 from SA after the summit. 'We're going to use it as a platform to begin to consolidate what we want to achieve in November when the leaders' summit takes place here [in Johannesburg],' Ramaphosa told reporters. — Cyril Ramaphosa 🇿🇦 (@CyrilRamaphosa) June 10, 2025 Ramaphosa's second meeting with Trump will take place three weeks after he met the US president in the White House on 21 May. The meeting followed months of worsening diplomatic ties between Washington and Pretoria, and false claims from Trump about a white 'genocide' in South Africa. 'Our visit to the White House was a moment where South Africa set out to reset the relationship with the United States, and I do believe that we have achieved that. 'Many people were very critical of our going there, and some were even saying we were going cap in hand and what-have-you — we were not. Some were even suggesting that we were summoned. We were not summoned. In my telephone conversation with President Trump two weeks earlier, I said, 'I want to come and see you', and he immediately conceded to that and later gave us a date. So that is not summoning. It is us taking the initiative that we want to go and see him,' said Ramaphosa. He stressed that SA did not 'go kowtowing' to the White House, but went with the aims of resetting US-SA relations and beginning 'serious engagement' with the US, particularly regarding trade and its participation in SA's G20 processes. While in the US, Trade, Industry and Competition Minister Parks Tau had proposed a wide-ranging trade deal to his counterpart, the US trade representative, spanning areas including gas, agriculture, automotive and minerals. Ramaphosa's spokesperson last week said that SA was awaiting a response to this proposal. 'Right now, there is engagement that is taking place between the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition and the Department of International Relations, so we've opened the way for us to engage seriously with the United States,' Ramaphosa told reporters. He added that the discussions on trade matters were 'now under way'. In his three-hour working visit with Trump, Ramaphosa had made the point that the US had been at the forefront of creating the G20, and so it would be important for Trump to be present when Ramaphosa handed over the G20 presidency to the US in November this year. 'Of course, the other [reason to go to the US] was to demonstrate the importance of President Trump coming to South Africa for the G20, and he immediately conceded that, yes, the G20 without the United States — who originated the G20 process — is not so effective as it is with the G7. He's going to the G7; I expect him to come to the G20 here. 'For us, it's important for us as a nation to reposition ourselves in the very turbulent geopolitical architecture or situation that we have, and that is why it was important to go to the United States,' he said. DM
TimesLIVE
6 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Ramaphosa names 31 'eminent people' to champion national dialogue
President Cyril Ramaphosa will be calling a national convention on August 15, which will set the agenda for the national dialogue. Ramaphosa also announced the appointment of an eminent persons group of 31 people, who he said will guide and champion the national dialogue and act as the guarantors of an inclusive, constructive and credible process. In an announcement on Tuesday, Ramaphosa said the national convention will represent the diversity of the South African nation and will be a representative gathering, bringing together government, political parties, civil society, business, labour, traditional leaders, religious leaders, cultural workers, sports organisations, women, youth and community voices, among others. 'Through their various political, social and other formations, in their workplaces, in places of worship, communities, villages and sites of learning, South Africans will in the months following the national convention be encouraged to be in dialogue to define our nation's path into the future,' Ramaphosa said. The views, concerns and proposals that will emerge will be brought together at a second national convention, planned for the beginning of next year. Ramaphosa said there was broad agreement that given the challenges the country was facing at the moment, the national dialogue should be convened. 'The idea of holding a dialogue is not a new concept in our country. In many ways having dialogues is part of our DNA as a nation. At every important moment in the history of our country, we have come together as a nation to confront our challenges and forge a path into the future in dialogue with one another.'
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Borders signal the edge of a nation, they must never be the edge of the law
The management of borders represents a critical point where state authority meets human rights and national security concerns. Borders in both the United States and South Africa serve as enforcement areas that test constitutional law boundaries and state authority limits through ethical governance challenges. Despite the existence of strong constitutional frameworks, borders often emerge as zones where power is exercised with minimal oversight and have increasingly become the subject of heated debates under the pressure of opposing interests. Judicial mechanisms offer post-facto challenges to abuse, but don't deter injustice from occurring before any intervention takes place. At stake are not only questions of territorial control, but fundamental civil liberties. While judicial mechanisms exist to challenge abuse, their retrospective nature means infringement is effected before remedy is available. A meaningful solution requires proactive legal training, deeper transparency and a strong culture of accountability. South Africa: consolidation with broad powers The formal establishment in April 2023 of the Border Management Authority (BMA) marked a significant structural shift in South Africa's border enforcement as envisioned in terms of the Border Management Authority Act, 2020. The launch of the BMA aimed to unify fragmented tasks within immigration, customs and security functions as a bold step towards operational efficiency. However, with consolidation comes concentration of power and, arguably, insufficient legal guardrails are in place. Current training of South African border agents appears to place overwhelming emphasis on security protocols, logistics and document verification. Detailed information about the standard training for officials has not yet been publicly documented. At the front lines, however, critical dimensions such as constitutional rights, international refugee protections and administrative justice remain underdeveloped or entirely absent. This knowledge gap opens the door for discretionary overreach. Border agents routinely make major impactful decisions, often without sufficient legal grounding. While the Constitution guarantees rights to both citizens and non-citizens, the implementation at borders of those rights remains inconsistent. Legal training should be a vanguard defence against such inconsistency, focusing not only on the technicalities of immigration law but also on values such as proportionality, rationality and dignity, all central to South Africa's constitutional vision. A training curriculum that includes real-world case studies and evolving jurisprudence would provide border officials with the legal literacy necessary to act effectively and lawfully. Borders are not lawless zones South African jurisprudence offers strong guidance. The Supreme Court of Appeal determined in Minister of Home Affairs v Watchenuka (2004) that constitutional rights apply to non-citizens and invalidated the idea that state power at borders escapes constitutional oversight. The Constitutional Court's decision in Dawood v Minister of Home Affairs (2000) established the necessity for defined guidelines to limit discretionary immigration actions while affirming that arbitrary decisions stand in opposition to constitutional principles of governance. In Gaertner and Others v Minister of Finance (2014), the court struck down provisions permitting customs officials to conduct warrantless property searches. While emphasising judicial oversight and opposing unchecked surveillance at borders, the court reinforced that, even at the border, constitutional safeguards must apply. Collectively, these cases make clear that South African borders are not constitutional vacuums. They are spaces where state interest and individual rights must be carefully balanced, a principle that must be embedded in policy, training and enforcement alike. The US: oversight in theory, discretion in practice US border agents carry out their duties under the Fourth Amendment's 'border search exception', which permits searches at international borders without warrants. While initially designed for luggage and customs inspections, the doctrine has expanded to include searches of electronic devices, sparking privacy concerns. In United States v Cotterman (2013), the Ninth Circuit introduced a distinction between 'basic' and 'forensic' device searches, requiring reasonable suspicion for the latter. This case was critical in defining the legal thresholds for state intrusion into digital privacy. Yet, reasonable suspicion, a circumstantial belief based on specific facts, remains a vague and flexible standard. Oversight mechanisms, while present, often fail to prevent real-world overreach. On paper, the US legal framework provides stronger judicial review than in many jurisdictions. The Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule and civil rights litigation offer meaningful remedies. But these mechanisms are largely retrospective. They rely on the injured party to challenge misconduct after it has already occurred, a process few travellers are equipped to initiate. Even with oversight, systemic issues such as racial profiling, device confiscation and prolonged detentions persist. Lessons from Cato's Letters Cato's Letters, a series of 18th-century essays written by Trenchard and Gordon, warned eloquently of the dangers of unaccountable power. Their call for liberty, limited government and the rule of law echoes loudly in today's border enforcement regimes. They warned that unchecked authority, even in the name of security, leads inevitably to oppression and abuse. Their defence of transparency, legal constraint and civic vigilance remains a powerful lens through which to evaluate modern border agencies. Whether it is US Customs and Border Protection or South Africa's BMA, concentrated authority without immediate oversight fosters environments where individual rights are routinely subordinated to institutional convenience or, even worse, ignorance. Technology is not a silver bullet In the US, billions have been spent on advanced border technologies: facial recognition, drone surveillance, biometric scanning and AI-powered analytics. These tools increase efficiency, but also amplify state power, and raise serious concerns about surveillance overreach and algorithmic bias. South Africa, while historically underresourced in this domain, is catching up. Home Affairs Minister Leon Schreiber has recently emphasised the digitisation of border processes and initiated a drone surveillance programme aimed at improving security along hard-to-patrol land borders. These innovations are promising, but require legal frameworks and ethical training to ensure that they enhance, not undermine, accountability. Technology alone cannot substitute for legal safeguards, ethical enforcement and public scrutiny. Without strong norms and oversight, technology simply makes it easier to abuse power faster and more efficiently. South Africa's systemic challenges Corruption remains a long-standing problem in South Africa's border management system. With a land border network spanning more than 4,700km, complex challenges in border management, surveillance and cross-border movement are common. Beit Bridge and Lebombo, the two busiest land border posts by movement of both people and goods, have gained notoriety for their involvement in bribery schemes, fostering illegal and fraudulent migration, and smuggling operations. Yet, these incidents are not exclusive to those posts. Both law enforcement operations and public trust in government institutions suffer from these prevailing situations. While integration under the BMA may help streamline accountability, corruption is a human problem, solved not by structure alone but through culture, leadership and training. The US, too, has struggled with ethical lapses in border enforcement, including documented abuses during the Trump administration involving family separations, inadequate detention conditions and racially biased screening practices. In both countries, external accountability mechanisms – including independent oversight bodies, public reporting and whistle-blower protections – are essential to preventing and addressing misconduct. Training is the real infrastructure Perhaps the clearest point of divergence between the US and South Africa lies in training systems. In the US, border agents attend standardised courses at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers covering constitutional law, immigration enforcement and ethical decision-making. By contrast, in South Africa training has been historically fragmented. The establishment of the BMA has offered an opportunity to establish standardised, law-based training that integrates legal, technical and ethical components. Given the BMA's expanded scope, this is not optional; it should be critical. A border agent without sufficient legal literacy is not just a weak link in enforcement but a risk to the rights of every traveller, migrant or citizen they encounter. Too often abuse is reported and remains unchecked. The human element in reform Ultimately, border enforcement is about people, those enforcing the law and those subject to it. The most sophisticated policy or technology will fail if the individuals tasked with implementation are poorly trained, poorly supervised or poorly supported. Ethics, empathy and law must inform every aspect of border interaction. Both the US and South Africa must invest not only in infrastructure but in human capital. Agents must be trained to understand not only how to detect threats, but how to respect rights. Performance metrics should include not just seizures or interdictions, but fair treatment, procedural integrity and respect for dignity. The front lines of democracy and eternal vigilance Border zones are not places outside the law. They are 'stress tests' for democracy and constitutionalism. In South Africa and the United States alike, the challenge is not whether the state can exercise power at the border, but how that power is constrained, overseen and made just. Legal training, transparency and accountability are not luxuries; they are the foundation of legitimate enforcement. As Cato's Letters reminds us, liberty depends not only on institutions but on 'eternal vigilance'. DM
