ActionSA criticizes SAHRC for supporting undocumented migrants' right to public healthcare
The party claimed that there is 'abuse' of the nation's public healthcare system by undocumented foreign nationals.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, ActionSA Parliamentary Chief Whip Lerato Ngobeni accused the government of enabling an unsustainable burden on healthcare facilities by allowing undocumented migrants to access services without restriction.
Ngobeni argued that the 'misapplication' of Section 27 of the Constitution has overwhelmed clinics and hospitals, placing the well-being of South African citizens at risk.
"It is unconscionable that a public clinic in Johannesburg can report that over 70% of its patient records belong to foreign nationals. No South African can enter another country legally without proof of medical insurance, yet here we are expected to carry this burden indefinitely," Ngobeni said.
ActionSA has proposed a suite of constitutional amendments aimed at restricting access to healthcare for undocumented migrants.
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
US Congress proposes sanctions against South Africa over Israel case
US President Donald Trump hands papers to President Cyril Ramaphosa during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Image: AFP A controversial bill introduced in the United States Congress aims to cut off direct aid to South Africa and impose targeted sanctions on its political leaders, citing the country's legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice and its growing diplomatic ties with Iran and Hamas. Republican Representative Greg Steube on Friday tabled the Addressing Hostile and Antisemitic Conduct by the Republic of South Africa Act of 2025 in the US House of Representatives. The proposed legislation accuses the South African government of using international institutions to wage 'lawfare' against Israel, advancing what it calls an 'antisemitic narrative under the guise of international law'. 'It is clear as day that the Government of South Africa is unfairly targeting the State of Israel and inciting hostility towards the United States and our allies,' Steube said in a statement dated June 17. 'America has no business engaging with a corrupt government that weaponises its political system against the Jewish people while jeopardising our national security interests by indulging terrorist organisations and their sponsors.' 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 ✕ Ad loading Steube said the bill is a direct response to South Africa's 'genocide' case against Israel at the ICJ, its hosting of Hamas delegations following the October 7 attacks, and the signing of an economic cooperation deal with Iran involving oil refinery projects. Under the bill, the US would suspend all direct assistance to South Africa, excluding humanitarian and public health aid, unless the government ceases all formal support for international legal actions 'that unfairly target the State of Israel', implements institutional reforms to combat corruption, and improves diplomatic cooperation with the United States. It also authorises the US president to impose sanctions, under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, on any South African official deemed to have promoted antisemitic policies or misused international courts to attack Israel. Political analyst Siseko Maposa, director at Surgetower Associates, said while the bill's passage is uncertain, its symbolic and diplomatic weight should not be underestimated. 'This bill exemplifies President Trump and the Republican faction's continued efforts to punish South Africa for its principled positions on international justice – particularly regarding Israel,' said Maposa. 'What distinguishes this initiative from prior attempts, however, is its heavy enforcement mechanisms, which would inflict tangible consequences for South Africa if enacted.' He noted that from 2012 to 2021, South Africa received an estimated $6 billion in direct US foreign direct investment, and a significant portion of development assistance has flowed through US government and affiliated aid programmes. 'While passage remains uncertain, a narrow legislative pathway exists. Republicans hold a slim majority in both chambers, but recent infighting, such as the collapse of the 'Big Beautiful Bill' vote, shows that internal dissent could derail it. South Africa's best chance may lie in lobbying moderate Republicans to oppose this draconian overreach,' he said. Maposa also warned that the bill could face legal challenges in the US if its conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is seen as infringing on constitutional free speech protections. At the time of publication, the South African government had not issued a formal response. However, senior ANC leaders have previously defended the country's application to the ICJ as a legal obligation under the Genocide Convention, following Israel's military campaign in Gaza that has resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths and widespread humanitarian destruction. Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights and last year described the ICJ case as a stand for 'international justice and accountability'. Steube's bill frames these actions differently, alleging that South Africa has 'repeatedly turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Hamas and Iran against Israel and the United States,' while 'aligning itself with authoritarian regimes hostile to United States national interests'. The bill further accuses the ANC of giving legitimacy to terrorist actors, pointing to its meetings with Hamas officials and Tehran's diplomatic engagement with Pretoria. The Democratic Alliance, the country's main opposition party, is expected to weigh in on the diplomatic fallout. The DA has previously criticised the ANC government's foreign policy as isolating South Africa from key Western partners. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation will likely be called on to explain whether any formal communication has been received from US officials regarding the bill and what diplomatic channels, if any, are being pursued to address it. Should the bill pass, it could result in South African officials being barred from travelling to the US or having assets frozen under US jurisdiction. It could also signal further deteriorating relations between the two countries, which have clashed in recent years over BRICS alignment, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and military cooperation exercises with China. For now, Pretoria's best hope appears to rest on political divisions within the US Republican Party. Maposa said: 'This internal Republican division may be its sole reprieve – one Pretoria must seize by urgently lobbying moderate Republican legislators to oppose the bill outright.' Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) was best suited to respond to the bill. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation confirmed that it is monitoring the proposed legislation through diplomatic channels. Spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said: 'As you may know, an act or bill is proposed and passed by a country's legislative body, such as the Parliament in South Africa or the Congress and Senate in the USA. These bodies operate within their sovereign territories, and their primary function is to create or implement policy through legislation, typically without the need for consultation with other nations. We recognise that this principle underscores the autonomy of states in their legislative processes. Legislative processes by their nature are publicly accessible, as such our Embassy in Washington D.C. will be able to monitor relevant developments.' On political lobbying within the US, Phiri said: 'We have noted the information regarding the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial contributions to American politicians. We understand that AIPAC openly ties its contributions to candidates' support for the US-Israel relationship, thereby creating a significant incentive for politicians to align with this stance. There is public information indicating that some House Representatives who have introduced bills may fall within this category of politicians.' Phiri added that South Africa's foreign policy remains non-aligned. 'Minister Lamola consistently asserts that South Africa's foreign policy is independent and non-aligned, rooted in its constitutional principles and national interests, rather than hostility towards any nation.' Regarding Iran, he said: 'South Africa upholds its dedication to international initiatives to curtail the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and supports the right to develop nuclear capability for peaceful purposes. South Africa's engagement with Iran is consistent with its broader foreign policy of engaging with all countries.' He said South Africa's approach to foreign policy was based on constitutional values and international legal principles. 'We reemphasise that our foreign policy is based on principles such as human rights, self-determination, anti-colonialism, multilateralism, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and the pursuit of a just and equitable world order. These are universal values, not ideological preferences. Our non-aligned stance enables us to pursue an independent foreign policy that serves our national interests and contributes to global peace and stability. This means engaging with all countries, regardless of their geopolitical alignment.' Phiri added: 'We wish to reiterate that South Africa's genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice is fundamentally driven by our commitment to upholding a rules-based international order anchored in international law, with the aim of protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring that all actors, including powerful states, are bound by these principles. It is not, as you suggest, driven by ideological alignment, but by a consistent pursuit of justice and the reinforcement of international legal frameworks.' Attempts to get comments from the ANC and the DA were unsuccessful at the time of publication.
The South African
2 hours ago
- The South African
Egypt and Sudan push back as Ethiopia finishes Nile dam
Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed announced the completion of the Nile dam project, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), during a parliamentary address on 3 July 2025. The GERD began construction in 2011 with a $4 billion (about R73.6 billion) budget. It is the largest hydroelectric project in Africa, measuring 1.8 km in width and 145 metres in height. Furthermore, the Nile dam is expected to generate more than 5 000 megawatts of electricity when it opens in September, according to Abiy. In February 2022, electricity generation began, and two turbines are now producing electricity. The dam is located 30 kilometres from Sudan's border, in Ethiopia's northwest region. Sudan and Egypt reiterated their opposition to the GERD's unilateral completion without a formal agreement. As a result of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), 97% of Egypt's water comes from the Nile, and the country is concerned about its access being reduced. Moreover, Sudan voiced concerns about the security of its dams and water infrastructure downstream. More than a decade of intense negotiations has not yielded a trilateral agreement. Sudan's Sovereign Council General Chairman Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi both denounced unilateral actions in the Blue Nile Basin on 30 June. Both leaders reaffirmed their commitment to regional legal frameworks and water security. 'The GERD is a collective opportunity, not a threat to neighbouring countries,' Abiy Ahmed emphasised. He declared that Ethiopia is willing to discuss water-related issues with Egypt and Sudan in a positive manner. Ethiopia's advancement would not come at the expense of others, Abiy reaffirmed. Across the Nile basin, he promoted 'collective advancement, collective energy, and collective water'. Ethiopia claims that economic growth and electrification depend on the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Half of Ethiopia's population does not have access to electricity, according to World Bank data. Egypt announced the cessation of negotiations in December 2023 as a result of Ethiopia's unilateral acts. Sudan continues to be unstable due to persistent civil strife and fluctuating political alignments. The African Union (AU) has advocated for fresh engagement; nevertheless, official mediation has not recommenced. International experts caution about rising tensions in the absence of a formal water-sharing mechanism. Ethiopia asserts that it does not need external approval to construct infrastructure within its borders. The GERD symbolises national pride and regional conflict in East Africa. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
The ANC and DA clash: A pivotal moment in South African politics
The latest showdown between the ANC and the DA hits different this time, writes Zohra Teke. Image: IOL The Democratic Alliance (DA) is starting to remind me of that school bully who demands protection money. And, this time, they're not getting any, so battle lines are dawn. Their latest salvo is their criminal charges against Higher Education Minister, Nobuhle Nkabane ostensibly for misleading parliament over what was meant to be the appointment of an independent panel. The DA claims she lied and appointed ANC cadres instead. But the hornet's nest was really triggered by the president's axing of the DA's deputy minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, Andrew Whitfield. The DA has been having a meltdown ever since, with Helen Zille threatening to unleash a 'nuclear option' - a DA vote of no confidence against President Cyril Ramaphosa. Protection of Ramaphosa against such a vote in return for the protection of DA interests in the GNU has long been the expectation on both sides when they entered GNU. But, tensions have been simmering for a while between the two parties, despite efforts on both sides to keep the GNU together, in spite of the squabbles and power struggles to captain the GNU ship. Throw in an iceberg and its the perfect battle for survival. There's no question that the DA's case has merit. Nkabane has been in their crosshairs for a while. The public's wrath over her lack of professionalism when she comfortably chewed gum before a portfolio committee does not help her image. The latest debacle over her questionable appointments and the ANC's silence does make it look like cadre protection – and the DA is going full throttle. It does then beg the question – is the axing of Whitfield justified in comparison to other transgressions by ANC members of the cabinet? Whitfield – fired for going on a DA party trip abroad without the president's permission, should have been rebuked, sanctioned or suspended. Fired? A tad extreme given the tension in the GNU. Its not surprising then that the DA has come out guns blazing. And with that, their overbearing authoritarian, bullying aggression which is characteristic of of the party's image. Demanding Ramaphosa acts within 48 hours, threatening a vote of no confidence, audaciously claiming they have the power to collapse government and withdrawing from a national dialogue aimed at finding solutions affecting South African lives. Yet the DA claims they remain in the GNU because they put South Africans first. It's not what the DA says that irks most South Africans – and black South Africans in particular. It's how they express their disagreements. That colonial tone of talking down with contempt and the arrogance in overarching importance to their position in the GNU. They behave as though they are captains on the GNU ship and all others mere passengers. Any disorderly conduct and they threaten to throw them overboard. And those on board have had enough. They're now daring the DA to do that – or risk being pushed. The unfortunate image of the DA as an arrogant party has been difficult for them to shake off – akin with the ANC and corruption. It's a defining perception. And, like not all in the ANC are corrupt, that arrogance in the DA is not a fair assumption of all its leaders. Compare DA leaders in Cape Town to those in KwaZulu-Natal. Chalk and cheese. It comes down to understanding how to address each other as South Africans and respect for cultural ethics. Helen Zille and John Steenhuisen should observe how their party leader in KZN, Francois Rodgers engages. Humble, respectful but disciplined to the DA's values. Shortly after the DA joined the GNU, I began noticing, as we all did, a shift in their approach. That combative, opposition ferociousness had simmered down. In fact, the ANC was treated like a new friend in the early GNU days. I questioned this, confidentially, with a DA insider. "We've been told to play nice. Not to go after them because of the GNU," came the response. And it was obvious. In the early GNU days, the DA were relatively mute in their criticisms of the ANC. So, what's changed? Clearly the dynamics. And more importantly, the timing. 2026 is the year of local government elections. The DA wants to govern more municipalities. Gloves are off. They can't do that while remaining silent or playing nice. And so, the DA is back to playing an opposition role. Exposing the ANC, heading to court, brandishing its superiority complex and why it's the saviour of all South Africans. That is really their game plan. Only this time, the ANC has other options to choose from and has called the DA's bluff. The EFF and MK are willing parties, waiting in the wings – the DA's worst nightmare and kiss of death for them in the GNU, something they don't want. It's self inflicted and the DA will need serious introspection if it ever came to that. The question is, can the DA humble itself? Can it behave like a GNU partner and not an opposition member? Even if they win their case and do succeed in getting those ANC ministers removed, there's no going back. This battle with the ANC hits different. The GNU mask is off. And there can be only one victor. * Zohra Teke is a seasoned journalist, freelancer and contributor. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
