Zuma's visit to Morocco described as 'betrayal' of the Western Sahara
Image: Itumeleng English / Independent Newspaper
Former South African President Jacob Zuma's recent visit to Morocco has ignited controversy and divided opinions, with some describing it as a 'betrayal' of the Western Sahara.
The visit, which occurred quietly on July 15th, was brought to light through social media posts from Moroccan officials and was confirmed by Youssef Amrani, Moroccan ambassador to the United States, who posted on X.
During his visit, Zuma was photographed alongside the MK Party's Head of Presidency, Magasela Mzobe, and Moroccan officials, with both South African and Moroccan flags displayed.
The visit has been interpreted as a significant shift, particularly in relation to the Western Sahara conflict.
Critics argue that Zuma's support for Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara marks a betrayal of the African Union's (AU) long-standing position advocating for Sahrawi self-determination.
Floyd Shivambu, former Secretary General of the MK Party, responded sharply, describing Zuma's recognition of Moroccan sovereignty as 'opportunistic' and a departure from the anti-colonial and revolutionary principles that underpin many liberation movements on the continent.
'This move contradicts our history of supporting oppressed peoples,' Shivambu said in a social media post.
The controversy deepened when Fikile Mbalula, the ANC's secretary general, publicly called Zuma a 'sellout' during a televised interview and reiterated his disapproval on social media.
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
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.
Next
Stay
Close ✕
The Pan African Forum Ltd & Associates chair, Dr. David Nyekorach-Matsanga, issued a formal condemnation on Sunday, describing Zuma's stance as a 'betrayal of African solidarity' and a violation of the AU's principles.
'Endorsing this occupation equates to endorsing colonialism,' read the statement..
'It dishonours the legacy of the late Muammar Gaddafi, a key defender of the Sahrawi cause, which is a recognized member state of the African Union, and its right to self-determination is protected under Article 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.'
He stated that Morocco's continued occupation of Western Sahara is a breach of international law and AU principles.
'Zuma's personal or party-level position does not override the AU's position nor reflect the will of South Africans. From Libya to now, Zuma's history shows a pattern of trading principles for favour.
'The AU Commission must reaffirm its official position on Western Sahara. The ANC must publicly distance itself from Zuma's stance. Pan-African organisations, civil society, and student movements must reject this betrayal,' read the statement.
In response, Dr Magasela Mzobe, head of the presidency in the MK Party, said nothing stops Jacob Zuma from visiting other African countries.
'President Zuma and the MKP officials will soon take MK members and supporters into confidence about this historic visit to Morocco. We don't owe the ANC, DA, or any organisation answers but MKP members. The ANC doesn't speak on behalf of SA on international matters.'
Meanwhile, Zuma's previous support for the Sahrawi cause as President of South Africa was well-documented, including meetings with Sahrawi leader Brahim Ghali.
Critics now question whether this visit signals a significant policy shift within the MK party or a personal diplomatic move.
Political analyst Joe Mhlanga expressed concern about the internal discord within the MK Party, highlighting ongoing internal struggles and leadership issues.
'The party appears to lack a clear direction; this flip-flopping on key issues like Western Sahara undermines their credibility and raises questions about their stance on international justice.'
'This is not different from supporting Israel over Palestine, because history reminds us that Morocco is the oppressor who continues to illegally occupy the Western Sahara, which is still under occupation," said Mhlanga.
The MK Party released a policy position earlier this week explaining that they believe South Africa and the Kingdom of Morocco should be committed to strengthening their bilateral relations, grounded in shared principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and African unity.
'The MK Party's identity is deeply rooted in the historic struggle for liberation and dignity in South Africa. Similarly, Morocco's history is marked by its resistance to colonial domination and its determined pursuit of national unity.
'Both nations were shaped by their anti-colonial struggles, South Africa from apartheid and Morocco from French and Spanish rule.'
thabo.makwakwa@inl.co.za
IOL Politics
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
6 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
MK Party takes battle against Cachalia to the High Court
JOHANNESBURG - After being shown the door by the Constitutional Court last month, the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party is taking its battle against the newly-appointed police Minister Firoz Cachalia to the High Court. It has filed an urgent case in the North Gauteng Division seeking to have Cachalia's appointment declared unconstitutional and invalid. The party is also challenging President Cyril Ramaphosa's decision to establish a commission of inquiry into alleged corruption, collusion and political interference within the police service. ALSO READ: Cachalia says he's not been given a timeline for his stint as acting police minister Similar to the case it lodged when it was denied direct access to the Constitutional Court, the MK Party is now asking the High Court to review the decisions taken by Ramaphosa when he decided to put Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave. It followed claims by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi that Mchunu was allegedly colluding with a criminal network that has infiltrated the South African Police Service (SAPS). On 1 August 2025, Cachalia was sworn into office to act in Mchunu's place, a move the MK Party also believes is unconstitutional. The party is now asking the High Court to consider these decisions, to find them illegal, invalid and inconsistent with the Constitution, and to set them aside. It's asked the court to enrol the matter for its first hearing on 26 August 2025.
The South African
6 hours ago
- The South African
I want a three-way with Putin and Zelensky, says Trump on pending meeting
US President Donald Trump said Wednesday he was planning a second meeting with Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin soon after Friday's Alaska summit – this time with Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelensky included. Trump is due to sit down with Putin in Anchorage on Friday, the first meeting between the Russian leader and a sitting US president since 2021. 'If the first one goes okay, we'll have a quick second one,' he told reporters. 'I would like to do it almost immediately, and we'll have a quick second meeting between president Putin and president Zelensky and myself, if they'd like to have me there.' The high-stakes talks come with Trump seeking to broker an end to Russia's nearly three-and-a-half year war in Ukraine, and Zelensky and his European allies have urged the Republican to push for a ceasefire. A stepped-up Russian offensive, and the fact Zelensky has not been invited to the Anchorage meeting Friday, have heightened fears that Trump and Putin could strike a deal that forces painful concessions on Ukraine. Trump said Russia would face 'very severe consequences' if Putin did not agree to end the war after Friday's meeting, without elaborating. The US leader promised dozens of times during his 2024 election campaign to end the war on his first day in office but has made scant progress towards brokering a peace deal. He threatened 'secondary sanctions' on Russia's trading partners over its invasion of Ukraine but his deadline for action came and went last week with no action announced. Trump told reporters he'd had a 'very good call' with European leaders including Zelensky as he took questions from reporters at an arts event at Washington's Kennedy Center. 'I would rate it at 10. You know – very, very friendly,' he 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. © Agence France-Presse
The Citizen
8 hours ago
- The Citizen
Zuma and MK party file urgent court bid to challenge Ramaphosa's Mchunu decision
The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. Former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party have not given up the fight and have lodged an urgent application against President Cyril Ramaphosa in the High Court in Pretoria. The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. What Zuma wants In the notice of motion, Zuma and his party want the high court to declare Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave. They also want the appointment of Wits law Professor Feroz Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry to be declared invalid, null and void and unconstitutional and set aside. ConCourt ruling The ConCourt on 31 July 2025 ruled that the application does not engage the court's jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in its matter against Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa's lawyer Kate Hofmeyr argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited. 'This matter does not fall within this court's exclusive jurisdiction. Very few matters do, and this is not one of them. 'Any allegation that the power was exercised unlawfully falls under our constitutional scheme to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to consider first. Additionally, there is no pressing need for this court, on 10 days' notice, to decide the issues in this matter as a court of first and last instance,' Hofmeyr said. This basically means that Zuma and the MK party had to approach the high court first, which they have now done. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS] The court ruling was handed down two hours after it hosted a special ceremonial sitting for retiring Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, whom Ramaphosa appointed to chair a commission to probe explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) top cop Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanzi of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system. Constitutional matter In his founding affidavit to the high court, Zuma said he is bringing the application in his personal capacity, but because the application is urgent and in the 'interest of justice' he is also deposing the papers on behalf of the MK party. 'The twin purposes of this application are to re-assert the merits of the application which were left unadjudicated by the Constitutional Court on account of its findings on exclusive jurisdiction and direct access; and to raise new grounds of illegality and irrationality based on events which arose post the 30 July 2025 hearing in the Constitutional Court,' Zuma argues. Zuma said that the present application is indisputably a constitutional matter. Section 169(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that the High Court of South Africa may decide any constitutional matter except a matter that the Constitutional Court has agreed to hear by way of direct access or is assigned by legislation to another court of a status similar to the High Court. 'This is such a matter because the Constitutional Court, rightly or in my view wrongly, declined to grant direct access. That decision must be respected as a fact until or unless it is set aside,' Zuma said. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party accuse ConCourt of ignoring 'most serious' violations by Ramaphosa Urgency In his papers, Zuma argues that in his Constitutional Court application, Ramaphosa did not contest the urgency, exclusive jurisdiction, and/or direct access. 'The president sought and was allowed to opportunistically hide behind those technicalities to escape much-needed judicial accountability for the unjustifiable multiple breaches of the rule of law. There are no more hiding places. 'The serious and unprecedented revelations of alleged criminality made by Lieutenant-General Mkhwanazi, as another highly qualified whistleblower, in the tradition of former Intelligence Chief Arthur Fraser, can no longer be ignored or swept under the carpet at the request of the president,' Zuma argued. Zuma explains that the urgency of the application is 'clearly not self-created, and it can never be reasonably asserted that relief may be obtained in due course.' 'The impugned commission has already commenced and continues to operate at huge cost to the taxpayer. In the (unlikely) event of its delivering a final report in six months' time, the matter would still not have been heard in due course.' Cachalia Zuma also argues that Cachalia has since assumed office and will be 'making decisions which affect the security of the people of South Africa' while Mchunu 'who has been illegally placed on leave of absence by the president continues to earn a salary and enjoy other expensive privileges such as bodyguards, drivers, free ministerial accommodation, air travel domestic workers and the like.' 'It is trite that the matter involves very serious and unprecedented allegations of executive and judicial capture which, if true, constitute a threat to the very democracy prevailing in South Africa. 'It is impossible to imagine a greater catastrophe than that which would transpire if the allegations are true and the matter is not heard as one of the utmost urgency. In relation to the question of urgency, the merits must be regarded as true and proven,' Zuma argues. Senzo Mchunu Zuma also argues that there is 'no express legal provision which empowers Ramaphosa to place a minister on leave of absence. 'The respondents can therefore only rely on an implied power which is said to flow from the power to dismiss. 'It will be argued that the decision does not pass the reasonable necessity test because the power to dismiss in section 91(2) must not be confused with the power to dismiss an employee,' he said. 'Financial benefit' Zuma said the appointment of Cachalia is 'totally incoherent' and false explanations given by Ramaphosa in 'respect of this decision owe to the fact that it is rooted in improper motives and bad faith'. 'Its purpose if to grant undue financial benefits to Minister Mchunu at the expense of the taxpayer and to shield him from accountability and well-deserved dismissal or removal from the Cabinet. 'In explaining this appointment, the president has performed both somersaults and backflips in a series of incompatible volte face manoeuvres, all pointing to sheer irrationality,' Zuma argued. In his papers, Zuma argued that following the swearing in of the acting police minister, both Ramaphosa and Cachalia gave media interviews, with differing accounts of his official title and status. Questions to Ramaphosa Zuma's attorneys sent a letter to Ramaphosa on 4 August 2025, posing 15 unanswered questions regarding his actions and justifications. Zuma said Ramaphosa's response was 'inadequate'. 'Given the public importance of the issues and the imminence of the 1 August date for the assumption of office by Professor Cachalia, the matter cries out for direct access.' ALSO READ: Zuma demands Ramaphosa resign by Friday, or else… Madlanga Commission Zuma also argues that there is no legal provision which is capable of endowing the president with the power to confer upon the Madlanga Commission the powers which are reserved to the Judicial Service and/or Magistrates' Commissions, to investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of members of the judiciary. 'There are specific and well-accepted policy reasons why such powers are exclusively reserved for the bodies referred to above. These include the preservation of the independence, dignity and effectiveness of the judiciary.' The matter is expected to heard on 26 August 2025. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
