Gayton praises Johann Rupert: 'I was wrong about him'
Like many South Africans, Gayton McKenzie has praised billionaire businessman Johann Rupert for his comments to US President Donald Trump, dismissing allegations of a 'white genocide'.
Rupert was part of President Cyril Ramaphosa's diplomatic delegation to the White House on Wednesday, 21 May.
Others included golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen, as well as ministers and MPS.
In a social media post, Minister of Sport, Art and Culture Gayton McKenzie praised Johann Rupert for standing up for South Africa and against US President Donald Trump's allegations.
Gayton posted: 'Rupert is not who we think he is, he is a true Patriot. He loves this country, and I wanna be the first to admit that I was wrong about him.
The minister continued: 'He spoke up against killing on flats, he spoke against illegal foreigners, but most importantly, he stood up for South Africa. He is a gem'.
Gayton McKenzie has previously criticised Johann Rupert for pulling the strings of the South African economy.
In 2017, he posted on his X account: 'Johann Rupert should have been jailed a long time ago, moving so many billions out of the country'.
Two years later, he posted: 'Whatever you accuse or hate the Guptas for, know that Oppenheimer & Rupert did it a 1000 times more.'
In 2021, he posted: 'Rupert and Oppenheimer family top the richest list during apartheid, Rupert and Oppenheimer family top the list richest list during democracy, if this doesn't show you that little changed, nothing will.'
During the meeting, US President Donald Trump continued to claim that South Africa was promoting 'white genocide, and 'taking farms' from white South Africans.
While President Ramaphosa and much of his cabinet entourage were unable to convince him otherwise, Johann Rupert boldly told Trump: 'We have too many deaths. But it's across the board. It's not only white farmers'.
He continued: 'If you look at the statistics, a lot of the murders – firstly, it's unemployment, and then illegal aliens'.
Rupert then claimed that the Western Cape – particularly the Cape Flats – had a higher violence and murder rate.
'We've got gang warfare', he added.
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
3 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
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
After the Bell: Unemployment and definitions — it's about ending the poverty, stupid
While economists argue about the definition of 'formal unemployment', what perhaps we really need to consider is a figure around how many people do something and receive an income in return for it. For as long as I can remember, one of the 'facts' that has almost defined so many of our conversations has been that we have the world's highest unemployment rate. It's the kind of point that underpins everything else; it puts political parties under pressure to claim they're trying to create jobs, it is the easiest way to understand how our economy is not working. We get reminders of this at least four times a year when Statistics South Africa releases its Quarterly Labour Force Survey. So many parts of our political commentariat erupt when we are reminded that so many people don't have jobs. For the past five years or so, I've found it really odd that the people who are given the most time to talk are union leaders. These are literally the people who have jobs talking about the people who don't have jobs. And, famously, the ANC and the government often say nothing. In fact, I remember once asking Thulas Nxesi, who was the Minister of Labour and Employment at the time, why he was so silent on the issue. His response, that it was not his job to create jobs, but actually the role of the private sector, seemed to miss the point somewhat. So I was hugely interested to read in BusinessLIVE that the outgoing CEO of Capitec, Gerrie Fourie, reckons we're understanding this in completely the wrong way. He says that we assume that the 32.9% of South Africans of working age who are unemployed are not actually working. Instead, he thinks, they are working. They're just working in the informal sector. As he puts it: 'If you go to the townships, most people have backrooms to rent out; everyone is doing something.' 'Formal unemployment' While economists can (and do … endlessly) argue about the definition of 'formal unemployment', what perhaps we really need to consider is a figure around how many people do something and receive an income in return for it. Because, as Fourie points out: 'If we really had a 32% unemployment rate, we would have had unrest.' I have to say, I do think that's true. If there were so many people who had literally nothing to do, and did not receive money as income, we would have much more violence than we actually do. And yes, social grants do play a role. But there are many millions of people who do not get a social grant, and have no formal job. At the same time, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has said for some time that our businesses face more regulation than in any other OECD-member country. Now, while regulation per se should not really hamper businesses, I think in South Africa it probably does. Some of the regulations seem unnecessarily onerous, but, more importantly, they open opportunities for corruption. And there is also an almost fatal lack of understanding from the government about the role so many informal businesses play. For example, during the pandemic, informal food markets were closed, along with spaza shops. That had the impact of making food more expensive just at the entirely wrong time. But we also don't really know how big the informal sector is. At least until 2019, our informal food sector – including spaza shops, hawkers, street traders and bakkie traders – employed more people than the formal food sector. That means that for every single person you see working in a supermarket, there is at least one other person in the informal sector. And that's just in food! Sustainable living You can imagine how many other people make a sustainable living from cutting hair or in the beauty industry, or simply washing cars. The people you see outside so many hardware stores hoping and praying they will get some work are making some money too. The problem, if there is one, seems to be that we want to focus on the formal sector. The sector that is regulated, and appears to have too many regulations. Instead, perhaps we should be focusing on simply creating the space for people to do something and be paid money in return. In other words, we should be trying to make people richer to reduce poverty. Of course, I could argue against myself here. Other research has shown that our economy is overly concentrated, basically many sectors are dominated by just a few companies. And getting new companies into those sectors is quite tough. We may not grow our economy without some kind of targeted intervention that results in de-concentration either. Changing a definition doesn't change anything, obviously. But, it does allow us to focus properly on what the real problems are. The real problem is poverty; we need more people to get more money for what they do.
Daily Maverick
3 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
