Did Renaldo Gouws get off too easily or does he deserve a second chance after apology?
Former DA MP Renaldo Gouws has issued a public apology after reaching an out-of-court settlement with the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), which will withdraw a hate-speech case lodged against him in the equality court.
The controversy stems from resurfaced footage from 2010 in which Gouws reacted angrily to EFF leader Julius Malema chanting 'Kill the boer, kill the farmer.'
In the video, Gouws used the k-word, called Malema a 'black idiot' and described those who sang with him as 'barbaric people'.
After the backlash and legal action, Gouws posted an apology video on X and YouTube, stating: 'The commission and I have reached an out-of-court settlement. This means they will withdraw the hate speech case against me before the equality court. One of the requirements is to make an apology video.'
In his apology, Gouws admitted his words were 'deeply hurtful' to black South Africans, though he stood by his view that the chant itself was insensitive and divisive.
The SAHRC is expected to issue a statement on the matter soon.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
24 minutes ago
- Daily Maverick
School's decision to change name from ‘disgraced' DF Malan to DF Akademie ‘undeniably rational'
The Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld a Bellville school's decision to change its name from DF Malan High School to DF Akademie to distance itself from its apartheid past, despite objections from some parents. A Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed a review application by four parents and found the school governing body (SGB) of DF Malan High School in Bellville, Western Cape, acted within its powers to rename the school in line with its values of inclusivity and academic excellence. This means the Afrikaans-medium school's name can be changed to DF Akademie, as suggested in May 2021. The voting for a new name took place in October 2021. Of the 3,466 votes received, the overwhelming majority, namely 85%, proposed DF Akademie. The litigation stems from Barend Rautenbach, Johan Smit, Francois Malan and Barend de Klerk taking umbrage against the SGB's decision after a consultative process in May 2021, to change the name of the school. In essence, they requested that the SCA review and set aside the decision of Western Cape Division of the High Court Judge Robert Henney, who dismissed the appellants' application to maintain the name DF Malan, the prime minister from 1948 to 195, who is considered to be one of the architects of apartheid. In his ruling, Henney said, 'The glorification of his name by an insistence that a school be named after him in post-apartheid South Africa where young people have to embrace a culture based on the values of our Constitution is an insult not only to them, but to the millions of South Africans who suffered at the hands of the apartheid regime.' The SCA judgment, penned by acting Judge John Smith, found the SGB's consultation process was comprehensive, fair and rational. 'The name of Dr Malan harks back to the apartheid era, an association that is fundamentally at odds with the school's ethos of inclusivity and transformation. The governing body's decision to purge the school of this unfortunate association with a disgraced legacy is thus undeniably rational and in the best interest of the school and all its stakeholders,' he stated. The ruling further stated that, while the school took pride in its academic success culture and inclusive policies, its controversial name had been an albatross around its neck. Stigma of name and call for change The school was established in 1954. Shortly after its establishment, the school obtained the permission of the then prime minister to name the school after him. In 2018, an alumnus wrote to the governing body, describing the name as 'insensitive and inappropriate' and demanded that the school begin a process to change its name. In September 2019, the school received similar letters from a parent of two learners. The pressure on the SGB to reconsider the school's name intensified during June 2020 when a group of alumni calling themselves 'DF Malan Must Fall' joined the fray. Their stated objective was to agitate for a name change and to address the 'institutional racism' at the school. In June 2020, the SGB began a process that would allow it to determine if the school's symbols, including its anthem and name, should be changed, as well as the cost implications thereof. Since the Schools Act does not prescribe a procedure for the changing of a school's name, the governing body was at sea concerning the issue and had to do its best to devise a fair process to enable consultation with stakeholders. All it had to rely on were circulars from the Department of Education and the Federation of Governing Bodies for South African Schools (Fedsas). Significantly, both circulars presumed that the governing body had the authority to change the school's name. A departmental circular, while instructing governing bodies to submit names to the provincial education department to enable it to check whether other schools bore the same name, expressly stated that a governing body's authority to change a school's name was beyond question. The Fedsas circular reminded governing bodies that changing a school's name was a sensitive matter and cautioned that wide consultation with all stakeholders, including parents, teachers, learners and the broader community, had to inform any decisions regarding a school's symbols, including its name, motto or emblem. Varied responses It was then suggested that the governing body create an ad hoc steering committee to oversee the consultation process and advise on potential new names or symbols. On 22 June 2020, the governing body wrote to all parents, students, alumni, and school staff on its database, informing them of its decision to begin a process to reconsider the school's name and symbols. The letter elicited a variety of responses, with some expressing misgivings about a name change, others supporting it and some making suggestions about the process that should be followed. The SGB then appointed an independent facilitator, Dr Jan Frederick Marais, a theologian of the Ecumenical Board of Stellenbosch University's Theology Faculty, and a renowned mediation expert, and thereafter a steering committee. Chairperson of the governing body Andre Roux asserted that although the steering committee members were advised to focus discussions on the school's symbols and identity, they were not instructed to prohibit discussions on the school's name. A draft report was eventually compiled and while everybody agreed with the school's core values as formulated by Dr Marais, three steering committee members disagreed with the decision to change the school's name. They were Veronica van Zyl, Mette Warnich – who also filed affidavits in support of the appeal application – and Gert Visser. On Marais's advice, a new task team was thereafter formed to advise the governing body on the formulation of a consultative process with stakeholders; criteria against which proposed new names could be evaluated; and the financial implications of a name change. The task team decided that invitations should be sent to all persons on the school's database to propose new names. After the invitations to comment were sent in April 2021, 626 of the recipients responded – 301 proposing that the name DF Malan be retained and 325 suggesting new names. However, the SGB decided that only two of the four names submitted by the task team were acceptable, namely Protea Akademie and DF Akademie. In a vote, DF Akademie won 85%. The appellants in the case took issue with several points. They claimed SGBs did not have the authority to change a school's name, that the SGB departed from the procedure it originally shared with the school community, stifled debate and failed to properly consult on the name change. The SCA judgment dismissed the complaints. 'I find that in changing the school's name, the governing body was acting within the ambit of its implied powers in terms of the Schools Act; that the procedure it adopted to consult interested parties was comprehensive, fair and rational; and that the decision to change the school's name was taken with due regard to, and rationally connected to the information before it. The appeal must therefore fail,' it read. DM
The South African
2 hours ago
- The South African
Minister Nkabane responds after chewing gum backlash
Minister of Higher Education and Training Dr Nobuhle Nkabane has come under fire for chewing bubble gum during a tense Portfolio Committee session last week. In a statement released and quickly deleted on the Department of Higher Education and Training's Facebook page, Nkabane responded to mounting criticism over her conduct. The incident took place during the 30 May 2025 committee meeting. Observers and MPs accused Nkabane of acting with 'disrespect' and showing a 'lack of seriousness' while addressing Parliament. 'I acknowledge that the situation could have been handled differently,' said Nkabane. She added that she had taken note of concerns raised by several stakeholders, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, who issued a public statement earlier on Wednesday. Critics singled out her behaviour during the meeting, particularly the moment she visibly chewed gum while speaking, as a symbol of disregard for parliamentary decorum. The backlash prompted growing calls for accountability and professionalism. Nkabane said she now wants to rebuild trust with Parliament. 'I intend to maintain a constructive, respectful, and professional working relationship with all Members of Parliament,' she said. She insisted she did not mean to 'evade accountability or undermine the decorum of Parliament.' She vowed to strengthen the relationship between her Ministry, the Department, and the Portfolio Committee. 'I will continue to lead with humility. I value the critical role of Parliament in providing oversight to ensure our sector delivers effectively for all South Africans,' she said Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
TimesLIVE
2 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
'It was never my intention to evade accountability or undermine parliament — Nkabane
Higher education minister Nobuhle Nkabane has accepted that her conduct was wrong when she appeared before a portfolio committee in parliament this week. TimesLIVE on Thursday reported that President Cyril Ramaphosa had asked Nkabane to write him a report on her conduct when she appeared in parliament and refused to answer questions relating to the process she followed on the appointment of chairs of sector education and training authorities (Setas). Ramaphosa's spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, on Thursday revealed that Nkabane had been requested to submit a detailed report on the appointment process, as well as an explanation of her conduct before the portfolio committee. Nkabane's demeanour was deemed disrespectful when she refused to answer questions and referred the chair of the committee to Google for answers to a question she was asked. Nkabane was criticised for appearing to be nonchalant and seemingly chewing gum the entire time she was before the committee. 'Upon reflection, and having considered the feedback received from various stakeholders, I acknowledge that the situation could have been handled differently. I take this opportunity to express my commitment to strengthening the relationship between the ministry, the department, and the portfolio committee,' said Nkabane in a statement released by her department. Ramaphosa had taken issue with Nkabane's behaviour and wanted her to explain herself as he believed government officials should always uphold standards when appearing before structures such as parliament. Magwenya said Ramaphosa expected ministers, deputy ministers and senior executives in the public sector to conduct themselves professionally, transparently and cordially in engaging parliament and other accountability structures. In her statement, Nkabane said she had intended to maintain what she said was a 'constructive, respectful and professional' working relationship with parliament. 'I remain committed to the principles of accountability, good governance and co-operative governance as outlined in our constitution and parliamentary protocols,' she said. 'It was never my intention to evade accountability or undermine the decorum of parliament. I will continue to lead with humility, and I value the critical role of parliament in providing oversight to ensure our sector delivers effectively for the benefit of all South Africans.'
