South Africa's tourism sector unites to address safety concerns during Ramaphosa-Trump talks
President Cyril Ramaphosa and President Donald Trump during talks at the White House.
The tides of misinformation swirling around South Africa's safety have been met with an unwavering wave of support from the nation's tourism bodies, rallying behind President Cyril Ramaphosa and his delegation following recent discussions at the White House with President Donald Trump.
This diplomatic dialogue, aimed at mending the strain in South Africa-US relations, revolved significantly around perceptions of violence and crime in the country, particularly the contentious narrative of an alleged ongoing white genocide.
At the heart of this discourse was South African billionaire Johann Rupert, who, during the conversation with Trump, candidly spoke about crime levels, saying: 'The crime is terrible, sir, but Mr Steenhuisen won't admit to it; he runs the Western Cape where I live. The highest murder rate is in the Cape Flats.'
Rupert's comments cast a spotlight on the complexities of crime in South Africa, setting the stage for broader reflections from the tourism industry.
The Southern Africa Tourism Services Association (Satsa) swiftly responded to the dialogue, declaring that much of the media coverage around these issues had leaned toward sensationalism, overshadowing the real experiences of travellers.
'South Africa isn't perfect. Like every country, we face challenges. But what we don't have is a crisis that justifies global panic or distorted narratives,' said Satsa CEO David Frost.
He continued, 'What we do have is millions of tourists arriving safely every year and leaving with stories that have nothing to do with fear and everything to do with awe.'
For travellers, incidents of violence remain exceedingly rare, and Frost's assertions are backed by statistical data showing that despite crime concerns, visitor satisfaction levels are notably high across key source markets.
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
US arrivals surged to 372 362 in 2024, recovering to 100% of 2019 levels amidst a backdrop of continuous and strong travel demand from North America.
To further bolster confidence, major tourism destinations in South Africa continue to operate smoothly, supported by robust public-private safety initiatives.
'We don't pretend crime doesn't exist,' Frost clarified. 'But context matters. The suggestion that tourists are at significant risk is dangerous misinformation that serves political agendas rather than public interest.'
Recognising the delicate narrative surrounding safety and tourism, Satsa urged international media outlets and global officials to engage responsibly when discussing intricate issues like land reform and national crime rates.
'This sector employs hundreds of thousands,' emphasised Frost.
'It puts food on tables from Soweto guesthouses right through to safari camps in Limpopo. And in South Africa, one tourism job typically supports up to seven people, meaning a single traveller's decision has a ripple effect across entire households.'
The Federated Hospitality Association of South Africa (Fedhasa) echoed these sentiments, reinforcing that the nation's accommodations, restaurants, and hospitality venues consistently provide safe, welcoming environments for both domestic and international guests.
'Our hospitality industry upholds some of the highest service and security standards globally. From boutique guesthouses to international hotel brands, our members implement comprehensive security protocols that allow guests to relax and enjoy South Africa's legendary hospitality with peace of mind,' stated Rosemary Anderson, Fedhasa's National Chairperson.
While crime is certainly acknowledged as a national challenge, particularly in the context of global tourism, Anderson highlighted the efforts made by the hospitality industry: 'We've built professionalism into every layer, from concierge desks knowing how to escalate concerns swiftly right through to housekeeping staff trained on guest wellbeing.'
As South Africa navigates its complex history en route to a shared future, the collective voices from the tourism sector advocate diligently for a nuanced understanding of the nation's safety realities.
They call for personal experience to guide perceptions: 'If you want honest answers about what travel here looks like today,' Frost encouraged, 'ask someone who's actually been, or better yet, come and see for yourself.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
7 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
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
No contracts, no clarity – almost a year of the GNU and still no ministerial scorecards
As the first anniversary of the Government of National Unity draws near, ministerial performance agreements have yet to materialise. South Africa's 10-party coalition turns one this month, but signed ministerial performance agreements – an important accountability tool – are still nowhere in sight. However, the Presidency says the work of government is not hampered by the absence of performance agreements. 'The process is under way and remains between the President and the concerned members of Cabinet. There are enough public accountability measures through Parliament when APPs (annual performance plans) are presented and assessed,' Presidency spokesperson Vincent Magwenya told Daily Maverick this week. In a response to Parliament in August 2024, President Cyril Ramaphosa said Cabinet ministers would only sign performance contracts once the 2024-29 Medium-Term Development Plan, which outlines the key priorities for the seventh administration, had been approved. The Medium-Term Development Plan was approved by the Cabinet in February, but ministers' performance agreements still seem some way off. President Cyril Ramaphosa appointed a bloated Cabinet and executive (32 ministers and 44 deputy ministers) to accommodate the parties in the Government of National Unity (GNU). The GNU Statement of Intent outlines the gargantuan government's agenda and strategic priorities. But, as Bhaso Ndzende, an associate professor of politics and international relations at the University of Johannesburg, wrote, exactly how each minister is to contribute to the realisation of these priorities is unclear in the absence of performance agreements. Previously, the ministerial performance agreements of the sixth administration were based on the 2019-2024 Medium-Term Strategic Framework, and ran from June 2019 to April 2024. But most of the agreements were signed only in late 2020. In his 2020 State of the Nation Address, Ramaphosa pledged to publish the agreements online, in an attempt at transparency. However, progress on those agreements was never made public. It's unclear whether the President will choose to make the performance agreements of the current administration public. Political analyst Professor Susan Booysen, says it could be a gamble so close to the 2026 local government elections. Booysen, however, said she regards ministerial performance agreements to be 'extremely important'. 'They can be a great accountability tool, not just internally for the ANC – and that would've been in times when it was just the ANC in power – but also now, in times of coalition. It would really help specify what the exact expectations are [and] what the exact permissions,' she said. Booysen said these agreements would define what was expected of each minister and what each minister was allowed to do. This is crucial because there have already been tensions and disagreements between coalition partners over responsibilities, with ministers being accused of overstepping or claiming credit for work started before their time, she said. 'We have seen that kind of acrimonious exchange happening, and a performance agreement would help spell out in exact details what it is that the expectations and requirements are,' she said. DA spokesperson Willie Aucamp told Daily Maverick that 'there [haven't] been any targets that have been set'. 'We believe, from the DA's side, that it is very important to get targets set. You must have measurables to be measured on,' he said. Aucamp said the DA supported making the contracts public, for South Africans to assess the work of the executive. 'Should the President not make [them] public, the ministers from the DA will make their targets public, as well as the achievement thereon,' he said. The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), Good and the Freedom Front Plus (FF Plus) told Daily Maverick they would support the publication of the performance contracts. IFP national spokesperson and Deputy Minister for Transport Mkhuleko Hlengwa described performance contracts as 'important tools to measure performances against the desired and set targets'. 'The IFP ministers and deputy ministers are visibly hard at work with or without the performance agreements because they know the commitments and the agreements they made with the voters,' he said. Good's secretary-general Brett Herron said the party 'fully [supports] meaningful performance agreements for members of the executive' and expected them to be 'concluded soon' given that the Medium-Term Development Plan had been adopted and the Budget had been tabled in Parliament. He said: 'We must remember that the GNU Cabinet was appointed in June 2024 – thus the executive has really been implementing the final few months of the previous term of office's performance plans. The delay in finalising the performance agreements is somewhat explicable in this context, though it is reasonable for the South African public to expect performance agreements to be wrapped up now and ready for signature – now that we have a governing programme and hopefully a Medium Term Budget to implement it.' However, Wouter Wessels, MP and national spokesperson for the FF Plus, said the party believed the finalising of ministerial performance agreements was taking too long. 'We do believe that performance agreements are an important component of accountability. Ministerial performance is, however, not solely dependent on such agreements… The conclusion of these agreements [is] taking much too long. We believe this should be expedited,' he told Daily Maverick. On whether to make them public, Wessels said: 'There is no need to keep such agreements secret.' 'Effective accountability can only take place in the presence of transparency,' he said. DM
Daily Maverick
7 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
