Here's why Jacinta 'MaNgobese' Zuma is no longer on Vuma FM
After weeks of speculation surrounding her departure, with some claiming she was 'dismissed' due to her links with the March in March movement in Durban, where protesters were demanding illegal immigrants leave the country, Vuma FM said her contract with the station had ended.
'The recent decision made by Vuma FM not to renew Ngobese-Zuma's contract as presenter at Vuma FM is not a dismissal but a natural conclusion of an independent contractor's term,' it said.
'All our presenter contracts are subject to annual renewal at the station's discretion, a standard practice in our industry. Vuma FM made the line-up changes based on internal, annual evaluation and not influenced by any external party.
'We would like to thank Ngobese-Zuma for her contribution to the station and wish her well in the future.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
11 hours ago
- eNCA
Controversial Bain & Company shuts up shop in SA
JOHANNESBURG - Bain and Co has decided to shut up shop in South Africa. The mega consultancy firm suffered huge reputational damage when it was embroiled in a corruption scandal involving former President, Jacob Zuma. The Nugent Commission in 2018 looked at how SARS was restructure according to a BAIN plan to become a shadow of its former self. The Zondo Commission of Inquiry found that Bain colluded with Zuma and a former SARS commissioner, Tom Moyane, to seize SARS and weaken it deliberately. The commission said it was one of the clearest cases of state capture. British politician, former UK Cabinet Minister, Lord Peter Hain, who has ties to SA and has been vocal about Bain and Company.
The Star
12 hours ago
- The Star
The MKP's two-faced foreign relations on Western Sahara
THE Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is a complete African Union (AU) member state and is recognised by more than 40 United Nations (UN) member states. Despite decades of occupation by Morocco and the ongoing struggle for self-determination, its existence is a testament to the resilience of its people and the enduring principles of international law regarding decolonisation. The UN classified this contested territory as a non-self-governing territory in 1963, following Spain's submission of information under Article 73(e) of the UN Charter. However, the territory has remained in a state of legal limbo despite multiple resolutions, diplomatic interventions and a protracted conflict involving Morocco, the Polisario Front and Algeria. This status affirms that the Sahrawi people have yet to exercise their right to self-determination under international law. The recent political stunt by Jacob Zuma's Umkhonto weSizwe Party (MK Party), which dismissed this right as 'Balkanisation', reflects a troubling ahistorisation of a people's identity and a flagrant disregard for international legal norms. South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relied on its reputation for principled support of the occupied peoples. The MK Party's stance on Western Sahara would cripple this moral standing, inviting accusations of hypocrisy. Worse, Zuma's use of the national flag during party-to-government talks with Morocco was improper, as he acted solely in his MK Party capacity, not in any official national role. In an op-ed, MK Party parliamentarian Mzanyele Manyi attempts to reframe the party's position as a rejection of 'Eurocentric binaries' and a commitment to precolonial African structures. A closer examination reveals a deeply contradictory and, frankly, two-faced approach that undermines the very principles the MK Party claims to uphold. Manyi's argument hinges on a romanticised and selective interpretation of history, conveniently overlooking the realities of international law and the fundamental right to self-determination that the AU has consistently championed. To suggest that Western Sahara was merely 'integrated with Morocco' through 'trade, kinship and religious institutions' before colonialism, and that this somehow equates to legitimate sovereignty, is to deliberately blur the lines between historical influence and political dominion. While precolonial connections existed, they do not negate the distinct identity of the Saharawi people or their internationally recognised right to choose their destiny. The assertion that Moroccan Sultans exercised 'spiritual and political suzerainty' akin to the British monarch's role over the Commonwealth is a disingenuous comparison. Based on colonial logics, the Commonwealth is a voluntary association of so-called independent states. Thus, it does not provide a historical justification for territorial claims over a people who have consistently sought their statehood. Furthermore, equating Morocco's actions in Western Sahara to an 'African character' while simultaneously dismissing the Saharawi's struggle for independence as 'intellectually lazy and historically dishonest' reveals a profound bias. Who, then, defines 'African character' in this narrative? Is it only those who align with pre-colonial monarchies, regardless of the aspirations of indigenous populations? Nevertheless, the 1975 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion found no ties of territorial sovereignty between Western Sahara and Morocco. Manyi's dismissal of this advisory opinion as 'just that… an opinion, not a binding judgment' is a classic legal evasion, as it ignores its foundational role in the UN and AU's stance on decolonisation. While advisory opinions are not directly binding in the same way as contentious judgments, they carry significant legal weight and are highly influential in international law. The ICJ explicitly stated that it 'did not find any ties of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity'. This critical finding, conveniently downplayed by Manyi, directly challenges the MK Party's narrative of historical Moroccan suzerainty. To suggest that those who rely on this opinion are 'disingenuously using it as a hammer' is to accuse the international legal framework itself of being disingenuous when it doesn't align with the MK Party's preferred outcome. Furthermore, it is crucial to recall that Spain's 1975 tripartite agreement with Morocco and Mauritania, which ceded administrative control of Western Sahara without a referendum, was a direct violation of UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) on the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which affirms the right to self-determination for all colonial territories. The MK Party's purported 'rejection of the Balkanisation of Africa' is perhaps the most glaring hypocrisy. For a party to claim it stands 'firmly against the further splintering of our continent into externally sponsored micro-states' while simultaneously advocating for the annexation of Western Sahara by Morocco is a monumental contradiction. The Saharawi Republic is a member of the AU, recognised by a significant number of African states, including South Africa. Its struggle is one of decolonisation and self-determination, not 'external sponsorship' designed to create a 'micro-state' for foreign interests. This is a classic case of projection, where the MK Party attributes to the Saharawi what many accuse Morocco of pursuing: territorial expansion under the guise of historical claims. The appeal to 'African sovereignty' and the 'legitimacy of political structures that preceded colonial conquest,' specifically the Moroccan monarchy, is a dangerous precedent. While respecting indigenous institutions is crucial, it cannot come at the expense of human rights or the universally accepted principle of self-determination. If the MK Party genuinely champions African Renaissance, it should uphold the rights of all African peoples, not just those aligned with powerful historical monarchies. To suggest that the AU's decision to readmit Morocco was purely an act of 'African agency' without considering geopolitical manoeuvring or economic influence is naive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Morocco had voluntarily left the continental body in 1984 because it disagreed with the decision of the AU's predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), to admit the Sahrawi Republic as a full member — effectively refusing to share a room with the very people it claims to share heritage and historical ties with. What Manyi omits to mention is that Western Sahara suffered a similar fate to that of black South Africans during the 1960s, when Britain conferred political independence on Afrikaners. Spain ceded the territory to Rabat instead of the Sahrawi people, leading to a political standoff with Mauritania, which had also made a concurrent claim. Following the colonial terra nullius myth, Afrikaners also make false claims that the land was empty or unused prior to their arrival and that Black South Africans were latecomers, erasing centuries of indigenous presence, land use, and political organisation by African communities. Moroccans follow almost an identical logic in Western Sahara, portraying the territory as historically ungoverned or inherently part of Morocco, thus denying the Sahrawi people's longstanding political identity and their right to self-determination. Like Zambia and others, MK Party appears to have also fallen under the spell of the despotic foreign policy of a pariah state that seeks validation from former colonial powers. In effect, Morocco exercises what Moses Ochonu calls 'colonialism by proxy', a form of indirect rule on behalf of European interests eager to exploit Western Sahara's rich mineral wealth, particularly phosphates and iron ore, without Sahrawi consent. Phosphates are crucial for fertiliser production and global agriculture. Morocco's extractivist agenda violates international law and entrenches neocolonial control over resources that rightfully belong to the Sahrawi people. The export of phosphates from Boucraa has been the subject of international legal challenges, including rulings by the European Court of Justice that trade agreements with Morocco cannot legally include resources from Western Sahara without the consent of the Sahrawi people. Beyond phosphates, Morocco has developed significant wind and solar farms in the occupied territory, such as Nareva's 50MW Foum el Oued farm, specifically powering the Bou Craa phosphate mines. Furthermore, European Union (EU) and Russian fishing fleets continue to plunder Western Sahara's rich Atlantic waters under trade agreements that, per ECJ rulings, cannot lawfully apply to Sahrawi territory. Similarly, Morocco has permitted large-scale agribusiness exports, including citrus and tomatoes, using water-intensive farming on occupied Sahrawi land, exacerbating local water scarcity and environmental degradation. Under international law, primarily UN General Assembly Resolution 1803 (1962) on permanent sovereignty over natural resources, the Sahrawi people are the rightful owners of these resources. However, as the territory remains non-self-governing and partially occupied by Morocco, any extraction or export without their free, prior and informed consent is considered illegal by many legal scholars, the AU and the UN. Despite international efforts to find a resolution, including the Baker Plans (Baker I and Baker II), which proposed varying degrees of autonomy for Western Sahara followed by a referendum on self-determination, viable alternatives remain underdeveloped. These UN-backed proposals, though at times accepted by one party and rejected by the other, represent pathways that prioritise the Sahrawi people's right to choose, offering a stark contrast to Morocco's unilateral autonomy initiative. Beyond the MK Party's internal contradictions, Rabat's international manoeuvring also merits scrutiny. France's 2024 endorsement of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, following the US recognition, indicates a concerning shift by major powers, prioritising geopolitical interests over international law and Western Sahara's self-determination. This trend is further amplified by Morocco's strategic utilisation of Israel normalisation, particularly through the Abraham Accords. This exploits a complex regional dynamic to garner global support for its occupation, at the expense of established principles of decolonisation and human rights. The MK Party's position on Western Sahara, as articulated by Manyi, is not a nuanced 'African-centred reading of history'. It is a thinly veiled justification for an international relations position that prioritises a selective historical narrative and the interests of a specific state over the fundamental right of a people to determine their future. MK Party's stance effectively legitimises resource theft disguised as anti-Western posturing. Therefore, the MK Party's foreign relations strategy is not only inconsistent but also fundamentally two-faced: it champions African unity and decolonisation in rhetoric, while actively undermining it in practice, particularly concerning the Saharawi people. The 'ghosts of colonial borders' that Manyi wishes to reject seem to linger quite strongly in the MK Party's approach, but only when it suits their political agenda. There is a need to address the MKP's rhetoric-reality gap, evident in their endorsement of Morocco's 'autonomy plan' as 'decolonisation' while simultaneously silencing Sahrawi self-determination. This constitutes a colonial proxy masked in anti-Western slogans. Siyayibanga le economy! * Siyabonga Hadebe is an independent commentator based in Geneva on socio-economic, political and global matters. ** The views expressed here do not reflect those of the Sunday Independent, Independent Media, or IOL. Get the real story on the go: Follow the Sunday Independent on WhatsApp.
The Citizen
14 hours ago
- The Citizen
Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, Hofmeyr
Ramaphosa's lawyer argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited. The Constitutional Court on Wednesday heard that MK party president Jacob Zuma's challenge to President Cyril Ramaphosa's decisions following the allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) police chief Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi should rather have been launched in the high court. Zuma is challenging Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave and appoint Wits law professor Firoz Cachalia as acting police minister. Chief Justice Mandisa Maya and Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga were not part of the bench hearing the matter on Wednesday. Among the claims made by Mkhwanazi were those of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system and that Mchunu intervened to disband the KZN political killings task team in order to shield individuals linked to politically connected crime syndicates. ConCourt cases In a long day of intense arguments, Ramaphosa's lawyer Kate Hofmeyr said 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. Zuma and MK party Hofmeyr also argued that even if the apex court were to entertain Zuma and the MK party's case, it is common cause that Ramaphosa enjoys broad discretion to appoint and dismiss ministers. 'That power, plainly, includes the lesser power of placing those ministers on leave while serious allegations of impropriety are being investigated. The constitution gives the president the power to decide how to manage his Cabinet. 'The wisdom of the choices he makes is to be judged by the democratic process and not the courts,' Hofmeyr argued. ALSO READ: 'We would have no country left if Zuma, MKP didn't fight Madlanga inquiry in ConCourt,' says Mpofu [VIDEO] Jurisdiction Hofmeyr argued that Zuma and the MK party have made no case why the Constitutional Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear their 'urgent case'. She said should the Constitutional Court widen its criteria for exclusive jurisdiction for the Zuma/MK party matter, it would mean that any case involving the exercise of the president's powers can be brought before the apex court. 'If this court in this judgment widens its jurisdictional ambit to take this case, it will likely mean, amongst other things, that all powers that are granted to the president under the Constitution, powers to assent to bills, powers to call for national referenda, to pardon offenders, to confer honours, will come here and on here as this court of first and final instance. And that would make a mockery of the prior jurisprudence of this court.' [WATCH] Kate Hofmeyr SC, on behalf of President Ramaphosa, says this matter does not fall within the Constitutional Court's exclusive jurisdiction, noting that very few matters do and this is not one of them. — SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025 ALSO READ: Zuma says Ramaphosa has no constitutional power to suspend Mchunu Urgency Justice Rammaka Mathopo asked Hofmeyer if she 'reckoned that the public importance of the matter could have been entertained by the High Court?' 'Certainly. There are manifold cases of great constitutional significance that appropriately start in the High Court. Justice Mathopo, this court has said in its own judgments how its workload is crippling currently. The expansion of its jurisdiction means it is a court that should be engaged as a court of last resort because that advances the administration of justice,' Hofmeyer said. 'There is such importance behind this point. The administration of justice requires this court to sit when it must sit and to deal with its extraordinary backlog that it currently faces. 'If this court can be the court that every litigant comes to when it alleges that there has been some irregular exercise of power by the president, all the other cases that legitimately must be here, the cases in which this court must sit as an appellate court are shifted down the roll, and that in our constitutional scheme is reason to be very cautious,' Hofmeyr said. 'Punishing consequences' Ramaphosa, in his heads of argument, said the urgent application initiated by Zuma directly to the Constitutional Court without approaching lower courts will have 'far-reaching and punishing consequences' for the apex court. 'Despite this, the court has been asked by the applicants to convene itself on hyper urgent timelines, and to determine alone, and finally, the meaning of constitutional provisions that will have far-reaching consequences for the exercise of power by the president well into the future.' Justice Steven Majiedt asked Hofmeyr why the Constitutional Court shouldn't hear the matter, 'given the fact that it goes to national security and that it implicates a wide range of actors, even the judiciary'. [WATCH] Kate Hofmeyr SC, on behalf of President Ramaphosa, says, 'When an interim interdict is sought, there is no final determination on the ultimate legal question. It is done at a prima facie level.' — SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025 Hofmeyr said that many cases involve matters of grave constitutional significance. 'But our constitutional scheme says those start in the high court. The high court is where you go. The high court moves urgently, more easily than this court does.' Hofmeyr added that former chief justice Magoeng Mogoeng 'spoke about the monopoly power of the apex court, which is why it needs to be highly selective about the cases it hears'. Mathopo asked what will happen to Cachalia's appointment if Hofmeyr is right that Zuma and the MK party have not made a case for direct access to the Constitutional Court, or proved that it has exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case. Hofmeyr said Cachalia will take office and the Madlanga Inquiry will continue. 'And that is the consequence, Justice Mathopo, when litigants go before the wrong forum, it is just simply the consequence. If you go before the forum that didn't have jurisdiction, you suffer this consequence.' Jurisdiction She slammed the MK party and Zuma's case, saying that they put together court jurisdiction for this Constitutional Court in 'two paragraphs of their founding affidavit'. 'This is such an important issue, and they devoted two paragraphs to it.' Earlier, Advocate Dali Mpofu, representing Zuma, was asked by Justice Leana Theron to explain why Zuma and the MK party could not have brought their challenge in the high court and where they address this in their court papers. According to Mpofu, the case deals with 'crisp' constitutional issues that would inevitably result in the apex court dealing with this matter anyway. Mpofu argued that if Zuma and the MK party had taken the time required to go through the court system with the application, 'we would have no country left'. 'Crucify' Mchunu During the day's proceedings, Advocate Griffiths Madonsela, for Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, argued that Zuma and the MK party, in their founding papers, called this 'suspension by another name'. 'We embrace that characterisation. The MK party drew out spears, crying out, 'crucify him, crucify him.' That's what they said when the president arrived. They said he must dismiss the minister… in their founding papers. That's the case they made out. 'The case they made out in reply at page 236, paragraph 90, they repeated that claim. They said the minister should have been dismissed. He deserved to be dismissed, as it happened with Whitfield at paragraph 90 of the replying affidavit. 'It was in this context that the president, after consultation with Minister Mchunu, and you'll find this in the answering affidavit at page 172, paragraph 12, where the minister says that I was consulted by the president about this and he confronted me about the allegations made by General Mkhwanazi and I denied wrongful conduct on my part. And that under those circumstances, the president said, I couldn't dissolve the issue. I'll place Minister Mchunu on special leave,' Madonsela said. He focused his address on arguing that Ramaphosa does have the power to place Mchunu on special leave, which he accepts amounted to the minister being suspended. He also defended the rationality of the president's decisions in response to Mkhwanazi's accusations. [WATCH] Advocate Griffiths Madonsela SC, for Police Minister Senzo Mchunu, says: "The applicants said, in their founding papers, this 'suspension by another name,' and we embrace that characterisation." — SABC News (@SABCNews) July 30, 2025 Commission Ramaphosa set up a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate the allegations and appointed Cachalia as acting police minister. Mpofu, representing Zuma, argued that the leave of absence granted to Mchunu is central to the MK party's case because if it had not been granted, there would be no need to appoint Cachalia in an acting position. According to the MK party, Mkhwanazi's accusations 'raise urgent and serious concerns around the constitution, the rule of law and national security'. While Ramaphosa said he had placed Mchunu on special leave to allow the Madlanga Commission to properly investigate the claims, Mpofu said questions need to be raised about whether 'another multibillion rand commission' was 'in the best interests of our people'. The MK party wants the court to decide urgently on the matter because Cachalia will assume office on 1 August. Cachalia Advocate Ngwako Maenetje, who also represented Ramaphosa, argued that Ramaphosa's decision to place Mchunu on leave of absence was good governance because it ensured there was no possibility of interference in the investigation into Mkhwanazi's allegations. He also responded to questions about the president's decision to appoint Cachalia in an acting capacity while the Madlanga Inquiry investigates the allegations levelled against Mchunu. Maenetje reiterated that Ramaphosa cannot exercise his power to dismiss on the basis of serious allegations that are untested. Mpofu agreed that Ramaphosa had the power to appoint Cachalia as the police minister. 'What he did not have the power to do was appoint him to an acting position.' Judgment has been reserved. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
