‘He's talking rubbish,' Malema responds to Shivambu's comments on EFF
Shivambu claims the MK party can successfully recruit EFF members.
EFF leader Julius Malema has responded to MK party secretary-general Floyd Shivambu's comments about EFF leaders.
In an interview with the SABC on Wednesday, Shivambu dismissed claims that the MK party was out to destroy the EFF. He, however, said his party could successfully recruit EFF leaders if it wished.
'I'm the one who took the decision to join the MK party, I was not recruited. I went to join the MK party. I approached the MK party to become an ordinary member,' Shivambu told SABC.
ALSO READ: 'My brothers turned against me': Malema addresses 'betrayals'
'There is no one who is destroying the EFF. If there was an intention to do so, we could have a programme to recruit members of the EFF to join MK party, which we can successfully do so, by the way, including the national officials of the EFF, we can be able to recruit them. Because a lot of them, when we appraised them before we joined the MK, understood squarely and fairly that it had to be done in that particular way. Including provincial and regional leaders.'
Shivambu said, however, that the focus of his party was to unite 'progressive forces', not destroy them
'It can be done, but we're not in a mission of trying to destroy the EFF. We're on a mission to make a political and ideological organisational decision and discussion on how we can unite the progressive forces.'
ALSO READ: Mbuyiseni Ndlozi resigns from Julius Malema's EFF: Here's what he is doing next
Responding to the comments, Malema said Shivambu was 'talking rubbish'.
Malema: EFF and MK party will not join forces
In March, the MK party and the African Transformation Movement (ATM) agreed to collaborate on all political, community, and parliamentary programmes and activities.
'We jointly call on all progressive political formations and individuals in South Africa to support and associate with the revolutionary and long overdue efforts to unify all the progressive forces. Unity is the most important weapon in the war against colonialism and for the total emancipation and freedom of our people,' said the two parties in a statement.
ALSO READ: Even Zuma was better than Trump – Malema
Following President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit to the US, where Minister of Agriculture and DA leader John Steenhuisen told US President Donald Trump that his party and the ANC were working together to keep the MK party and EFF out of power, there were calls for the latter parties to join forces.
However, Malema at the time told his followers it would not happen.
Shivambu left the EFF in August last year, completely blind siding Malema.
The two have not had kind words to say of each other since then.
READ NEXT: 'Older men gossiping about me': Malema reacts to Ramaphosa-Trump meeting after Kill the Boer videos
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
EFF rejects fuel levy as an attack on the poor
EFF treasurer-general Omphile Maotwe has written to Finance Minister Enoch Godogwana rejecting the fuel levy. Image: Nhlanhla Phillips / Independent Newspapers By: Omphile Maotwe On 21 May 2025, the Minister of Finance tabled the third version of the 2025/26 national budget. Instead of solutions to South Africa's deepening fiscal and social crisis, the Minister delivered a cold and calculated betrayal. He proposed an increase to the general fuel levy by 16 cents per litre for petrol and 15 cents for diesel. True to what the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the country has come to expect from the GNU led administration, the proposal was dishonestly framed as a 'regulatory adjustment' instead of a tax increase. This levy aims to recover R1.3 billion in revenue after the courts struck down the unlawful VAT increase that featured in the initial budget proposal. The EFF is clear that the fuel levy is not a regulatory tweak but rather a tax hike that is being unlawfully imposed through the Customs and Excise Act, instead of through the Money Bill Act, as mandated by section 77 of the Constitution. We reject this proposal precisely because it is illegal and anti-poor. Our Constitution empowers only parliament to impose a national tax through the money bill. The Minister should therefore not be using administrative regulation to introduce a tax increase. The levy is a tax, even the government's own Budget Review refers to this fuel levy increase as part of 'fuel taxes on petrol and diesel.' Proceeding with it in this manner will only serve to defy the constitution, undermine Parliament's authority, and rob South Africans of their right to participate in fiscal decisions that directly affect their lives. The judiciary was clear in its handling of the initially proposed VAT increase by the Minister. A 2% VAT increase was proposed which was brought down to 0.5% but ultimately through the work of the EFF, it was recognised as a tax measure implemented outside of the law by the judiciary and subsequently suspended. Yet here we are again with a Minister who is determined to continue to undermine parliament and the courts. As the EFF we recognise this as arrogance, contempt and a blatant disregard of the law. The economic consequences of this illegal fuel levy will be devastating. While R1.3 billion may seem insignificant to Treasury, its impact on the working class and ordinary people of this country will be economically challenging. Fuel costs are a direct driver of inflation in transport, food, and essential services. For a worker commuting daily, a student relying on taxis, or a small trader transporting goods, this increase is not abstract. It is an attack on their survival. Our country is facing an economic crisis. That much is clear but as the EFF we will always be the voice that shields the poor from carrying an economic burden that results from poor governance and mismanagement. The crisis was not created by our unemployed youth in Tembisa or the grandmother in Giyani. It was not created by the street vendor in Umlazi or the taxi driver in Mthatha. The crisis was created by the ANC government through corruption, mismanagement, and a neoliberal austerity agenda that punishes the poor and protects the rich. The EFF has taken decisive action regarding the fuel levy and on 26 May 2025, we wrote to the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance, demanding immediate parliamentary intervention. We called for the Minister of Finance to withdraw the proposed levy because it must be introduced through the Money Bill Act. We further urged the Finance Committee to place this matter on its agenda, summon the Minister to account, and reaffirm Parliament's constitutional authority over all revenue measures. This matter deserves urgent attention because if the levy is allowed to proceed in its illegal state, we run the risk of further legal challenges and collapsing the fiscal framework. No legitimate parliament would endorse a budget that is tainted by unlawful taxation. What is most alarming is that if the 2025/26 Budget is not adopted by 31 July as required by the Constitution, the government could face an administrative shutdown under section 21. The EFF however is not opposed to raising revenue legitimately. We support progressive taxation that will fund development, create much-needed jobs, and render services to our people. But taxation must be lawful, fair, and aimed at those with the most. The government needs to urgently impose a wealth tax, close corporate tax loopholes, and end illicit financial flows. Revenue can also be raised by scrapping the bailouts to failing state-owned entities but the EFF is against putting further strain on the poor and working class. Imposing a fuel levy is a political decision and must be recognised as such. The EFF will not be silenced or intimidated by political bullies who continue to disregard the law, due process and undermine parliament and our constitution. We stand ready to fight against the injustices that will emanate from this tax increase that is disguised as an adjustment. We will fight against it in the corridors of parliament, in the confines of the courtrooms, and ultimately on the streets and on the picket lines. We will challenge this decision because we recognise it for exactly what it is, a bid to squeeze the poor and continue to cushion the rich and politically connected. Parliament should not allow the fuel levy to proceed as it threatens to render our institutions irrelevant. The people of South Africa did not vote for a government that will govern without notice, and parliament should be at the forefront of protecting the people who have entrusted us to lead and represent them. We call on all progressive forces to demand accountability, consultation, and for parliament to reclaim its power. The time has come for parliament to decide if it will stand with the people of South Africa or bow down to an unaccountable executive. The EFF stands with the people. * Omphile Maotwe is the Treasurer General of the Economic Freedom Fighters and a Member of Parliament ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media
IOL News
6 hours ago
- IOL News
Rule of Law: Judicial Accountability is Healthy for Democracy
Protest: EFF leader Julius Malema led a march to the Constitutional Court demanding that President Cyril Ramaphosa be held accountable for the Phala Phala scandal. The question regarding the judiciary's independence is not so dissimilar to the former President Thabo Mbeki's reaction to the ANC's parliamentarians' vote to squash the establishment of a Multi-Party Committee to investigate whether President Ramaphosa has a case to answer on the Phala Phala farmgate scandal, says the writer. Prof. Sipho Seepe Umkhonto we Sizwe Party (MKP) argues that 'Members of Parliament are required to declare their assets; therefore, the same standards should apply to judges, who wield immense constitutional power and influence. Judges must be held to a higher standard of scrutiny and accountability. South Africa cannot afford to have a judiciary shielded from the same transparency expected of other arms of state.' The self-appointed guardians of our democracy would have none of it. The judiciary is a no-go area. After all, conventional wisdom dictates that judges are paragons of virtue. They cannot be compared to corruption-prone politicians and public officials. Counterposing MKP's call is an argument that says, 'Judges are already subject to the most stringent asset and income declarations of all public office bearers'. Also, subjecting judges to lifestyle audits would imply suspicion of corruption. If stringent processes for probing judicial integrity are in place, MKP's call should not pose a problem. A case of suspicion has been made. According to the 2018 Afrobarometer survey, a publication of the Institute for Justice & Reconciliation, 32% of South Africans suspect that judges are involved in corruption. In 2002, the level of mistrust was 15%. Chief Justice Mandisa Maya is on record that there are issues that require urgent attention including 'the report of the 2021 Afrobarometer survey that the public's trust in the judiciary has declined…loss of confidence in the judiciary does not augur well for the rule of law and our democracy'. She concluded that 'the judiciary itself needs to do an introspection and check if we are to blame for this change of attitude towards the institution.' Delivering the Nelson Mandela Lecture, former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng raised a similar concern. 'There is an attempt to capture the judiciary…. any captured member of the judiciary will simply be told or will know in advance, when so and so and so and so are involved, we'd better know your place. Or when certain issues are involved, well, the decision is known in advance'. Far from being denialists, Mogoeng and Maya have approached the subject with a certain degree of maturity. Theirs is to call for vigilance against attempts to undermine (or shield) the judiciary. All that MKP has done is put the matter up for public debate. For Joe Soap in the street, the question regarding the judiciary is not so dissimilar to the former President Thabo Mbeki's reaction to the ANC's parliamentarians' vote to squash the establishment of a Multi-Party Committee to investigate whether President Ramaphosa has a case to answer on the Phala Phala farmgate scandal. Mbeki asked. 'Are we saying that we suspect or know that he (Ramaphosa) has done something impeachable and therefore decided that we must protect our president at all costs by ensuring that no Multi-Party Committee is formed?...... We acted as we did [as if] there was something to hide'. MKP's call for judges to be subjected to lifestyle audits coincides with President Ramaphosa's initiation of the process for the appointment of the Deputy Chief Justice. The position became vacant following the elevation of Justice Mandisa Maya to lead the apex court. For his part, President Ramaphosa nominated four judge-presidents. With Mahube Molemela (Supreme Court of Appeal having declined the nomination, the remaining contenders comprise Dunstan Mlambo (Gauteng), Cagney John Musi (Free State), and Lazarus Pule Tlaletsi (Northern Cape). The Judicial Service Commission, headed by Chief Justice Maya, is expected to pronounce itself on the suitability of the nominees for the position. To be clear, this is a political appointment. With the recycling of Mlambo after his failed bid for the position of Chief Justice, it is a safe bet that Mlambo will get the position. Hopefully, this time around, President Ramaphosa will not go for a demonstrably weak candidate. This would be a case of history repeating itself. A knee-jerk response to MKP will not remove the lingering suspicions of bias. First, far from ubiquitous misconceptions, judges are neither necessarily wise nor omniscient. They are no angels. They are as human and as fallible as all of us. They are prone to self-interest and self-preservation, which may not cohere with the principles of justice. Second, judges do not exist in a vacuum. They are socio-cultural and political animals. There are many instances where history and politics cloud their judgments. The Constitutional Court's ruling regarding a tussle between the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and AfriForum on changing street names is a case in point. In challenging the Tshwane Municipality regarding its decision to change street names to names of struggle icons, AfriForum had, among other things, argued that doing so would violate the constitutional right of the Afrikaner people to enjoy their culture. The Gauteng High Court had ruled in favour of AfriForum. A majority judgment by Mogoeng CJ concurred by Moseneke DCJ, Bosielo AJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Mhlantla J, Nkabinde J, and Zondo J, upheld the appeal against the lower court. Justices Cameron and Froneman dissented. This couldn't be a mere coincidence that all black judges saw things differently from their white colleagues. It is highly possible that socio-political and cultural experiences played a role in arriving at this ruling. Another instance relates to a case in which a full bench (three judges) of the Gauteng High Court decided to offer a political commentary on a matter involving Eskom. Nailing their political flags to the mast, the three judges contended that the 'new dawn that engulfed the country in 2018 did not miss Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (Eskom). It brought life to Eskom in that in January 2018, Eskom's old and inactive leadership was replaced by new leadership with new life to undo years of maladministration and corruption within the organization.' It didn't take long before the country was plunged into rolling blackouts. The fall from Ramaphoria to Ramaruin happened at lightning speed. Lastly, members of the judiciary have not covered themselves in glory. We need not go further than recall the unseemly spectacle that played itself during the publicly televised interviews for the position of Chief Justice. It was evident that Justice Raymond Zondo was a spectacularly poor performer. Only three commissioners reportedly gave Zondo a thumbs-up against the current Chief Justice Maya's twenty-one votes. A discerning individual would have declined the appointment. We must not underplay the extent to which many of our judges are beholden to neo-colonialism. After all, they are part of 'a native elite faithful and [compliant] to the needs of the colonialists. It was largely through educational processes at all levels that these elites were moulded and culturally turned.' It is not an accident that we have courts that foreground 'colonially borrowed languages; languages that are hardly understood by [their audience], and languages, which even these speakers handle with difficulty and grammatical inadequacies.' The sooner we demythologize members of the judiciary, the better for us. * Professor Sipho P. Seepe is an Higher Education & Strategy Consultant. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
8 hours ago
- IOL News
Liberation History: AfriForum's Desperate Bid to Distort Struggle Heritage
Then Deputy President Thabo Mbeki (R) hands over the African National Congress (ANC) submission to Archbishop Desmond Tutu, head of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), in Cape Town May on 12, 1997. Anyone who claims that singing "Kill the boer, Kill the farmer' is tantamount to declaring war against the Boers is irrational, unreasonable, and disingenuous, says the writer. Image: AFP Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu THE recent trip by President Cyril Ramaphosa and his delegation to America produced different results for different people. The official position from the government is that the trip was meant to restart trade relations between South Africa and America. As such, proponents of this view argue that the trip was a huge success. However, a counterview is that the trip caused more harm than good to South Africa's global image. According to this view, some of the utterances made at the Oval Office were unwarranted, factually flawed, and devoid of context. Apart from the questionable pictures of the graves which allegedly carried the bodies of Afrikaners killed in South Africa (who were not from South Africa), there were other developments which happened in that meeting. One of them was when Agriculture Minister John Steenhuizen told President Trump that the reason for the DA to join the coalition government led by Ramaphosa was solely to keep the EFF and MKP away from the Union Buildings. This raised questions about the honesty in the formation of the coalition government. The climax of the Oval Office meeting was when Trump played a video of Julius Malema singing his famous song 'Kill the Boer, the Farmer' and the other song which was sung by former President Jacob Zuma, which says 'Sizobadubula ngo mbayimbayi' [We are going to shoot them with artillery]. I will focus on Julius Malema's song because it is the one that has caused controversy. Even people who are supposed to know better fell into the trap of Trump's propaganda. The question becomes: does this song represent symbolic relevance or is it a violation of human rights and an instigator of racial violence? To answer this question, political expediency and political parochialism will not offer any assistance. Only objectivity, rationality, and context will assist in arriving at a credible conclusion. Firstly, this is a struggle song which was not composed by Malema. The late Peter Mokaba used to sing this song and dance but he never killed any Boer or Afrikaner. In fact, as he sang this song, no one went on a rampage killing Afrikaners following the song's lyrics. So, anyone who claims that singing this song is tantamount to declaring war against the Boers is irrational, unreasonable, and disingenuous. 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 ✕ Secondly, there have already been rulings on the singing of this song. Between 2016 and 2019, Malema sang this song six times on different occasions. In 2020, Afriforum approached the Gauteng Equality Court asking it to declare the song hate speech. The court dismissed this claim. Exercising its right, AfriForum proceeded to the Supreme Court of Appeal to try its luck. To this organisation's surprise, on 24 May 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed AfriForum's appeal. In its judgement, the Court stated that 'Mr Malema was doing no more than exercising his right to freedom of expression.' It went further to implore AfriForum to see the song in its correct context. In a nutshell, the Court implicitly concluded that AfriForum was driven by political expediency when it laid charges against Malema, not to unite the nation. There was no intention to get justice. Instead, the motivating factor was for AfriForum to be seen as being politically relevant. Not even the Constitutional Court could agree with the argument advanced by Afriforum. It dismissed Afriforum's application for leave to appeal, arguing that the application 'bears no reasonable prospects of success.' Out of desperation, AfriForum approached President Ramaphosa asking him to condemn the singing of the song. The organisation was once again disappointed when Ramaphosa referred it to the courts which had already ruled on the matter. Given this history, a few questions arise. Why did Trump play Malema's video singing this song? Was his intention to prove that Afrikaners are being killed in South Africa or was he simply playing a mind's game to test Ramaphosa's delegation? To what extent did Ramaphosa and his team rise above such petty politics? Was the President correct in telling Trump that 'this is not the view of government' and that Malema's EFF was not part of the coalition government? Was this necessary? A nation which abandons its history is as good as dead. It is for this reason that some universities in America insist that regardless of the qualifications students are pursuing, they are forced to take some history modules. This is done to ensure that they do not operate in a vacuum but understand the historical context. Struggle songs are part of the South African heritage. They remind all of us about the history of this country. South Africa became a democracy in 1994. However, to this day, the song 'Mhla libuyayo kuyobe kunzima' [when our land comes back, it will be tough] is still being sung for different reasons. It continues to say 'kuyokhala uBotha, kuqhume umbayimbayi' [there will be a cry from Botha, and there will be an explosion of artillery].
