MK Party's bid to challenge outcome of 2024 elections postponed
JOHANNESBURG - Proceedings in the Electoral Court will not go ahead on Tuesday in the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party's application challenging the outcome of the 2024 national and provincial elections.
The specialist court was scheduled to hear the matter on Tuesday, but the matter has been postponed at the request of the official opposition.
This after the party filed a notice to appeal the judgment of the court in an earlier interlocutory application, which dismissed its application to have the court order the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) to provide it with access to documents it used before pronouncing on the results of the watershed elections.
Over a year has passed since South Africans headed to the polls, and the MK Party argues that the system experienced significant downtime and exhibited grave inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the reported results, undermining the constitutional requirement for free and fair elections.
It also wants President Cyril Ramaphosa to declare a new election date within 90 days from which an order may be made.
But the main application has stalled as the party continues its bid to appeal a judgment of the Electoral Court, which dismissed its application to have the IEC relinquish some documents which the party feels would be key in advancing its case.
The IEC, however, said it had handed over the documents requested by the party.
A new date for the hearing is yet to be determined.
ALSO READ: DA: MK Party hasn't provided evidence to back claims of election vote rigging
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
MK Party redeployment or reckoning? Oh Floyd Shivambu, it was always going to end in tears
Floyd Shivambu has been removed as the MK Party secretary general, just a few months after clashing with former president Jacob Zuma's daughter, Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla. Image: Sihle Mlambo/IOL It was only a matter of time until the tide turned violently against Floyd Shivambu in the uMkhonto weSizwe Party. The official stance from the MK Party is that Shivambu violated the MK Party Constitution, ironically, a document he is credited for penning. However, his tumultuous relationship with Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, the sweetheart daughter of former president Jacob Zuma, cannot be ignored. Of course, Zuma-Sambudla publicly admonished Shivambu with expletives, describing him as the "worst thing that has happened to the MK Party". She later, reluctantly, apologised, only after being publicly lashed by her dad. But, since that day, the daggers have been out for Shivambu. What followed, despite the apology, were attacks aimed at the SG, from MK Party Youth leaders and factions seen as sympathetic to Dudu, as she is affectionately known. Speaking to Newzroom Afrika, Dr MK Zwakala, a political brand analyst, remarked that if indeed Shivambu had contravened the party constitution, why was he being redeployed, instead of being made to apologise and ultimately, facing a disciplinary. Zwakala believes that 'there is much more beyond the Bushiri visit', and it is difficult to disagree with this analysis. Of course, the official stance is that the fired secretary general violated the party's constitution, specifically concerning Section 3(J), which states: 'Undertaking international trips and participating in activities and programmes that are opposed to the agenda of the MK Party or an allied party'. MK Party chairperson Nathi Nhleko said this referred to Shivambu's Bushiri visit in Malawi during the Easter weekend, where Shivambu was seen openly rubbing shoulders with the fugitive pastor Shepherd Bushiri, even describing the fugitive as a Pan Africanist with vision and community impact - despite him being accused of raping young girls in South Africa. 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 Really Floyd? For one applauded for his academic stature, clarity and as a known Marxist scholar, why would you wish to associate with such, thuggery? One of the IOL headlines at the time of the Bushiri mess screamed: 'What are you doing Floyd?' What followed was high-profile public lashings from no less than the Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi, giving Shivambu's detractors, internally, fuel to remove him - for visiting his "brother", Bushiri. 'After lengthy discussions and considerable inputs from the National Officials, it was concluded that the actions by the Secretary General were found to be against the spirit and the prescripts of the MK Party Constitution. 'Noting that on the 12 March 2025, The Republic of Malawi's Chief Resident Magistrate delivered a ruling that granted the South African Republic's request for the extradition, it is common knowledge that Bishop Shepherd Bushiri and his wife Mary Bushiri skipped bail, and are to return to South Africa to stand trial on various charges. Thank you my brother, Prophet Bushiri for hosting us and for the kind words. The government scale amount of work you do to economically, educationally, socially and spiritually uplift our people is unparalleled now and in history. I know that the leadership and people of Malawi… — Floyd Shivambu (@FloydShivambu) April 19, 2025 'Based on the deliberations by the National Officials, it was reaffirmed that the trip was not an officially sanctioned programme of the organisation or the President, which therefore goes against the constitution of the party. The MK Party and its leadership, has been approached by members of various sectors of civil society and has taken due consideration of the gravity of this matter. 'Due to the serious nature of this matter and its implications for the party, its image, values and principles, The President and the National Officials were left with no other option but to act swiftly in addressing this matter. Consequently, as a responsible organisation accountable to its electorate and the broader society, the National Officials have come to a decision to redeploy Commander Floyd Shivambu as the Secretary General of the party, and redeploy him to the National Assembly. 'We believe that his redeployment will strengthen the MK Party caucus as the Official Opposition, as Commander Shivambu carries a wealth of experience as a former member of Parliament,' read Nhleko on behalf of the MK Party leadership. Under Zuma's leadership of the MK Party, there has been one consistent theme: instability. The position of secretary general appears to be a poisoned chalice, with those adorned the title of SG barely lasting in the job. Shivambu has been the longest serving SG thus far in that revolving door, but the mistake he made was to fail to read the room. Once he publicly clashes with Dudu, there was only ever going to be one winner, and that was never going to be the former leader of the EFF. When Shivambu left the Economic Freedom Fighters to join the MK Party last year, it shocked all and sundry, including his former ally and Siamese twin, Julius Malema, who had famously declared to all that Uncle Floyd be part of a delegation to see him off should he die. At the time, we warned in a column that the Floyd Shivambu-MKP dalliance could spell the end for the MKP-EFF-led Progressive Caucus - and the events of the past nine months have proved devastating for the so-called progressive left, with little unity between the two main parties, the MKP and the EFF. When Shivambu was appointed national organizer of the MK Party, the honest politician - as Zuma described him upon joining from the EFF - denounced smaller political parties, characterising them as 'fiefdoms of individuals'. At the time, his remarks were aimed at the EFF's Julius Malema, but he was careful to state that it wasn't, instead pointing to the United Democratic Movement of Bantu Holomisa and the Inkatha Freedom Party, formerly of the late Mangosuthu Buthelezi. But Malema, Holomisa and Buthelezi aside, the MKP is also Zuma's little fiefdom, run in the image and disguise of Zuma's wishes, and perhaps those of his daughter, Duduzile. The MKP has shown in character and the manifesting chaos around it, that it is exactly that too. Zuma pleaded for time for the party during an hour long speech, and he asserted yet again, that people would be fired, should they not perform. And Shivambu, and many others, have been fired in the past year, as Zuma still has the ultimate powers to hire and fire as he pleases. With Magasela Mzobe as the Head of the Presidency at the Private Office of President Zuma, Shivambu has an ally in the former ANC Youth League leader who can do some of his bidding for him. But unlike Mzobe, there are hundreds more around the MK Party leadership who are far less sympathetic and who have little appreciation for Shivambu and his Marxist virtues.
Daily Maverick
9 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Words that wound — ‘Kill the Boer' is legal, but not wise for a fragile South Africa
In March 2025, South Africa's Constitutional Court upheld a contentious ruling that the slogan 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer,' a liberation-era chant, does not constitute hate speech under South African law. This judgment followed an appeal by AfriForum against a previous judgment. The civil rights organisation argued that the slogan incited violence and hatred, particularly against white South Africans and especially farmers. The court found, however, that the phrase, when understood in its historical and political context, did not meet the legal threshold of hate speech. That said, it is argued here that while the slogan may be constitutionally protected, its deliberate use in contemporary political settings is not merely provocative, it is profoundly unwise. In a society still grappling with the legacies of apartheid, endemic inequality and fragile race relations, words carry weight far beyond their legal definitions. It is within this context that the South Africa Social Cohesion Index (Sasci), developed by the Inclusive Society Institute, has drawn timely attention to a worrying decline in societal cohesion by providing critical insights into why the continued use of divisive slogans serve only to jeopardise the country's progress toward unity and social stability. The Constitutional Court's reasoning The Constitutional Court's dismissal of the appeal by AfriForum was grounded in legal and historical nuance. The justices concurred with the 2022 Equality Court ruling that the chant should not be taken literally but as a symbolic relic of the anti-apartheid struggle. It was not, they emphasised, a call to actual violence against individuals or groups. There was also insufficient evidence linking the use of the slogan to specific acts of harm or incitement, which is a requirement for speech to be classified as hate speech under South African law. This decision reaffirmed the robust commitment of the South African judiciary to freedom of expression, one of the bedrock rights enshrined in the post-apartheid Constitution. It recognises that a democratic society must allow space for emotional, political and even uncomfortable speech. But freedom of speech is not equal to freedom from consequence. Social cohesion under strain According to the 2024 Sasci, South Africa is treading a narrow ridge between cohesion and fragmentation. The index, which measures solidarity, fairness, trust, identity, civic participation and respect for institutions, paints a picture of partial resilience and underlying volatility. Solidarity sits at 61.3, indicating moderate willingness to care for others regardless of identity, but still vulnerable to racial and economic fault lines; Perception of Fairness, however, is a weak point, at 42.7, reflecting widespread public sentiment that South Africa's socioeconomic systems remain unjust; Intergroup Trust is alarmingly low – just 41% of black and white South Africans express some trust in one another; and Identification, that is, the sense of belonging to a shared national identity, is strong at 72.2, and is the glue that is holding the nation together. But this is susceptible to erosion under divisive rhetoric. These findings underscore a society still recovering from historical trauma, where the social glue is thin and brittle. Therefore, it is in this context that the use of a slogan such as 'Kill the Boer' must be evaluated, not in a courtroom, but in the court of public morality and nation-building. The political weaponisation of memory Chants such as 'Kill the Boer' are more than mere slogans. They are symbolic vessels, carrying the memory of past struggles, but also the potential to stir contemporary fears. So, with this in mind, it follows that the historical justification of the chant, which is rooted in anti-apartheid resistance, does not automatically make its current use, politically or socially, justifiable. In today's South Africa, invoking such slogans, especially during political rallies or in highly charged public platforms, is often a calculated act. It is a way of stoking populist sentiment, galvanising political bases and appealing to historical loyalties. But this comes at a steep cost: the polarisation of society, the re-traumatisation of communities and the erosion of hard-won intergroup solidarity. The Trump factor and global amplification The domestic controversy over 'Kill the Boer' took on international significance during South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit to the White House in May 2025. In a meeting with US President Donald Trump, the slogan once again found itself at the centre of a geopolitical flashpoint. Trump, resurrecting claims he first made in 2018, alleged that white South African farmers were the targets of a 'genocide'. He presented images purporting to show images of murdered white farmers. President Ramaphosa firmly rejected Trump's assertions, defending South Africa's constitutional land reform process and reaffirming the courts' dismissal of the 'white genocide' narrative. Yet, the damage had been done because Trump's global platform amplified fringe narratives and served to validate domestic fear-based politics within South Africa. This episode demonstrates how international rhetoric can dangerously reinforce internal social divisions, skew the global perception of South Africa's challenges and undermine the legitimacy of its reconciliation and land reform processes. Why legal speech can still be harmful Even if the courts are correct in finding that 'Kill the Boer' does not legally constitute hate speech, it is crucial to understand that legality does not equate to wisdom, unity or responsibility. In a country with such deep wounds, where race, land, identity and violence intersect in volatile ways, rhetoric matters. When political figures or public activists invoke this chant in the present day, they must consider: The historical trauma it reactivates for many white South Africans; The fear it induces among farming communities; The backlash it sparks from domestic and international actors; and Most importantly, the distrust and division it fuels between already polarised communities. Words, especially in political arenas, do not exist in a vacuum. They shape social perception, inform behaviour and influence whether people feel safe, respected and included. What leadership requires Leadership in a democratic society does not simply involve defending rights; it involves exercising them responsibly. South Africa's path forward depends not only on constitutional fidelity, but on a moral and social imagination capable of transcending inherited grievances. Political leaders and public influencers must ask: Does this speech unify or divide? Does it heal or harm? The question is no longer about what is legal, but what is nation-building. This is by no means a call for censorship. It is a call for ethical and moral restraint and for choosing reconciliation over rhetoric. And for choosing unity over provocation. It is possible to honour the past without weaponising it. It is possible to demand justice without alienating communities. It is possible to seek equity without amplifying enmity. Conclusion: The test of nationhood South Africa's journey from apartheid to democracy is often lauded as a global symbol of reconciliation. But symbols can become brittle. The Sasci's data tell us that the social cement is cracking and the slogan controversy is one fault line among many. If left unaddressed, such fissures can widen into fractures. The Constitutional Court has spoken on what the law allows. Now the burden falls to civil society, political leaders and ordinary citizens to determine what wisdom, justice and reconciliation demand. In a country where speech has the power to harm or to heal, the future will not be built by shouting into wounds, but by speaking into hope. DM
TimesLIVE
9 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
‘Apartheid Did Not Die' by Mandla J Radebe
ABOUT THE BOOK More than three decades after the fall of apartheid, the spectre of its legacy continues to cast a long, divisive shadow over SA's democracy. Apartheid Did Not Die is a powerful indictment of the persistent structures of racial power and economic inequality that continue to shape the nation. Prof Mandla J Radebe confronts the unsettling truth that for many, the democratic era has not dismantled the architecture of apartheid, it has merely repainted it. He interrogates the role of the media in shaping public consciousness and maintaining elite hegemony. Through explorations of the endurance of racial capitalism, and sharp media and political analysis, Apartheid Did Not Die challenges us to reckon with the unfinished business of justice and true liberation. EXTRACT A Cathartic Moment Since the government's bold announcement that it would approach the ICJ under the Genocide Convention to address 'acts committed by Israel' in the ongoing Gaza siege, this principled move was met with widespread applause, especially within progressive circles. As survivors of apartheid, South Africans hold a unique perspective that enables us to recognise when similar systems of oppression and injustice are unfolding. Our lived experience instils a commitment to international solidarity, precisely because it was acts of generosity from people we did not even know who played a crucial role in contributing to our freedom. Therefore, this continues to drive us to stand against any form of injustice to ensure that others do not endure similar traumatic experiences. The government's case was rooted in deep concerns over the 'plight of civilians caught in the present Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip', highlighting the indiscriminate use of force and the forcible displacement of inhabitants. The government argued that these actions constituted international crimes, including crimes against humanity and war crimes. Moreover, the government presented evidence suggesting that acts meeting the threshold of genocide or related crimes, as defined under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, were occurring in Gaza. Granted, South Africa is a country of people with diverse perspectives, including those who support Israel. In fact, most organisations representing sections of the white settler community not only opposed the decision but were appalled by it. The South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) criticised the government's decision to take Israel to the ICJ, accusing it of failing 'to play a role in engaging with both sides' of the conflict. The SAJBD said it 'mourns the loss of innocent life on both sides of the current Israel–Hamas conflict'. The use of the words 'war' and 'conflict' in reference to Gaza obscure a number of historical facts, beyond the reality that this is a one-sided annihilation of the Palestinians by Israel. The number of dead Palestinians, predominantly women and children, speaks volumes. Nonetheless, the SAJBD holds the view that the government is biased in its approach, stating, 'We urged our government to play a role in talking to both sides, and in using their influence to ensure Hamas releases the hostages, following their deadly raid on Israel on 7 October'. Similarly, the official opposition, the DA, criticised the government's decision, contending that South Africa was 'taking sides' and had 'undermined its ability to serve as a neutral mediator'. Its spokesperson, Emma Powell, accused the ANC government of inconsistency, stating, 'It is, however, a great pity that the South African government has consistently ignored gross human rights violations on our own doorsteps, including in Sudan and Zimbabwe'. This retort, often echoed by those who covertly support the atrocities in Gaza, accuses SA of selectively addressing conflicts far removed and affecting non-Africans, while allegedly ignoring crises on the continent. Some 'black' organisations, such as the African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP), invoke biblical justifications for their support of Israel. ACDP leader Kenneth Meshoe argued that, instead of taking Israel to the UN's top court for genocide crimes, SA could have mediated to convince Hamas to release the hostages captured during the October 7 raid in Israel. Meshoe also questioned the validity of the government's case, claiming, 'We also do not believe that the South African government will be able to prove that Israel has the necessary genocidal intent against the Palestinian people as required by the genocide convention'. The opposition by the ACDP and other obscure black organisations to the government's decision to take Israel to the ICJ reflects a painful reality that, in every society and struggle, there are collaborators, those whose minds have been so deeply infiltrated by the enemy's propaganda that they often adopt positions more radical than the oppressor's. This phenomenon speaks to the psychological scars of colonialism, as Fanon articulated. South African poet Mzwakhe Mbuli captures this sentiment poignantly in one of his stanzas: 'ukulimala kwengqondo, ukulimala komuntu' (a psychological wound can be as devastating as physical harm). Of course, the likes of Meshoe were proven wrong by the court, which found Israel responsible for, inter alia, racial segregation and apartheid against the Palestinians. The ruling detailed a long list of abuses and violations of international law that Israeli authorities had committed. It declared Israel's occupation illegal and established clear standards for Israel to provide reparations to the Palestinian people. Indeed, the ICJ rulings align with extensive evidence of grave crimes committed by Israeli authorities, as presented by the UN and numerous experts. In a landmark case brought by SA, the ICJ issued three binding rulings mandating urgent measures that Israeli authorities must implement to prevent the risk of genocide in their military operations in Gaza. Let us now return to why I regard this as a cathartic moment for many ordinary South Africans such as myself. For those of us who experienced apartheid first-hand and continue to live with its physical and emotional scars and its permanent legacies, this case symbolises a reckoning with injustice on a global stage. It is a moment of collective validation for the oppressed, and an opportunity to demand accountability in the face of systemic violence. For many, it rekindles the hope that their own struggles and sacrifices have not been forgotten, and that the fight against oppression, wherever it exists, remains a universal imperative. The ICJ proceedings provided a platform for marginalised voices to articulate the profound impact of apartheid oppression, with the Gaza genocide serving as the focal point. The Israeli government and the apartheid regime were and are, two brutal forces, alike in indignity. Much like the TRC, which served as a vital space to confront the architects of apartheid, such as the ruthless operatives of the Vlakplaas unit, the ICJ hearings resonated deeply with those who suffered under apartheid. For those who once endured such horrors in silence, the ICJ proceedings were not solely about justice for Palestinians, but they also symbolised an opportunity for personal and collective healing, connecting past and present struggles against systemic oppression. The TRC, which was established to uncover the truth, and allow victims to recount their harrowing experiences, and confront those responsible for grave injustices. It served as a symbolic arena where the silenced could reclaim their narratives, shedding light on the depths of their suffering. The scars of apartheid, deeply etched in the national psyche, found recognition through the TRC's crucial role in fostering healing and reconciliation. The testimonies shared during the process transcended personal anguish, and in the process, they became testaments to resilience and the indomitable spirit of those who were oppressed. These stories brought to light both the pain of the past and the courage of individuals committed to justice and equality. The proceedings at the ICJ rekindled these memories, providing a rare and invaluable platform for the Palestinian voice to be heard on an international stage. The Palestinians' experiences of oppression and suffering were unveiled, laying bare, for the world to witness, the harsh realities they face every minute. t brought to bear the universal yearning for dignity and equality and how the Palestinians are resisting the shackles of oppression. Indeed, it is imperative to acknowledge that healing is an ongoing journey. While the TRC, for instance, marked a significant step towards reconciliation, it also revealed the complexities of forgiveness in the immediate aftermath of deep-seated trauma. Critical conversations about justice were ignited, just like the accountability and the collective responsibility to build a more equitable and inclusive future. While celebrating SA's principled stance, we must honour the strength and courage of those who spoke out, even as we confront the ongoing challenges in the pursuit of genuine justice. The ICJ case serves as a reminder that the journey towards truth and reconciliation demands commitment and vigilance; this is the basis upon which a nation liberated from the shadows of its painful past may be constructed. This cannot happen in isolation but requires dedication to international solidarity premised on a genuine commitment to global peace and justice. This is the only way to guarantee that such atrocities do not recur. However, if we fail to counter imperialism, the driving force behind racial capitalism and other injustices, our efforts are unlikely to succeed. It is this very commitment that underpins SA's unwavering support for the Palestinian struggle.
