Walter and Albertina Sisulu Foundation Calls for President Ramaphosa to Step Down Over Corruption Inaction
The Walter and Albertina Sisulu Foundation has issued a bold call for President Cyril Ramaphosa to resign, accusing him of failing to confront the deepening corruption crisis in the country.
This comes in the wake of recent allegations involving top police officials and the President's decision to place Police Minister Senzo Mchunu on special leave.
The Foundation reacted strongly to Ramaphosa's move to establish a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate claims made by KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi. Commissioner Mkhwanazi has accused Minister Mchunu and several senior police figures of interfering in ongoing criminal investigations, raising serious concerns about political meddling in law enforcement.
In a statement, the Foundation's chairperson, Dr Allan Boesak, criticised what he described as the President's lack of decisive leadership in tackling corruption and protecting the integrity of public institutions.
'We cannot pretend any longer that President Ramaphosa is serious about fighting corruption,' said Boesak. 'Since the time he took office, we would have hoped for bold and clear leadership. But time and again, he has failed to act when it mattered. His inaction sends a message that there are no real consequences for those who undermine justice.'
Boesak said the President's response to the growing crisis in the police ranks shows weakness rather than commitment. 'Placing a minister on special leave and launching another inquiry are not signs of strong leadership. These are attempts to delay and deflect, not to resolve,' he added.
The Foundation, which upholds the legacy of anti-apartheid leaders Walter and Albertina Sisulu, said the public deserves more than promises and commissions. According to Boesak, ordinary South Africans continue to suffer the consequences of corruption, including poor service delivery, rising crime, and growing inequality.
The call for Ramaphosa's resignation marks a rare intervention by a respected civil society organisation rooted in the country's liberation history. It also reflects mounting frustration among citizens and civic leaders who feel that political accountability is being avoided under the guise of legal processes.
The Presidency has not yet responded to the Foundation's statement. However, sources within government say the inquiry into the police interference claims will begin within the coming weeks, and the terms of reference are being finalised.
Political analysts say the situation places renewed pressure on the President, who has long positioned himself as a reformer committed to cleaning up government. But with public trust in law enforcement and political leadership continuing to decline, critics argue that time is running out for Ramaphosa to prove that his administration is serious about change.
For now, the Foundation is standing firm in its stance, insisting that only a fresh start under new leadership will restore public confidence and begin the difficult task of rebuilding institutions affected by years of political interference and corruption.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
2 hours ago
- The Citizen
Pandor calls on leaders to be good 'troublemakers' like Madiba
Pandor reflected on Mandela's life, his values, and the kind of world he envisioned. Former International Relations Minister Naledi Pandor delivering the keynote address at the official UN commemoration of Nelson Mandela International Day in New York on Friday. Picture: Nelson Mandela Foundation. As South Africans marked Nelson Mandela Day on Friday, former International Relations Minister Naledi Pandor called on world leaders to follow in the steps of Madiba by being 'good troublemakers.' Pandor delivered the keynote address at the official UN commemoration of Nelson Mandela International Day in New York on Mandela Day. 'Mandela a troublemaker' Speaking in her role as the chairperson of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, Pandor reflected on Mandela's life, his values, and the kind of world he envisioned. 'While we all, with great affection, refer to President Mandela's first name as 'Nelson', the name that he was actually given at birth was 'Rolihlahla'. In isiXhosa, which was Mandela's mother tongue, the colloquial meaning of Rolihlahla is 'troublemaker''. She explained that while 'Rolihlahla' directly meant 'shake the tree', the isiXhosa name given to Madiba was 'troublemaker.' 'Mandela was a troublemaker. The kind of good troublemaker that we need more of in the world today, and the kind that we will continue to need well into the future. The kind of troublemaker that some people did not always love because he pushed for an equality that we should all enjoy and for the overcoming of a system of oppression which was called convenient and profitable to some,' said Pandor. As South Africans marked Nelson Mandela Day on Friday, former International Relations Minister Naledi Pandor called on world leaders to follow in the steps of Madiba by being 'good troublemakers.' #MandelaDay @TheCitizen_News — 𝙵𝚊𝚒𝚣𝚎𝚕 𝙿𝚊𝚝𝚎𝚕 ⚡️ (@FaizelPatel143) July 20, 2025 ALSO READ: 'They never stopped' – Naledi Pandor continues to receive threats 'Fierce man' Pandor said Mandela was a fierce man on matters of justice. 'He pushed for a kind of equality and the overcoming of a system of oppression that was convenient and profitable to some, a system that was defeated in South Africa, but which has yet to be eradicated globally.' SA's freedom Pandor told guests, including United Nations (UN) Secretary General António Guterres, about the role the UN played in South Africa's struggle for freedom. 'The United Nations steered us to freedom, stood against apartheid domination not through arms, but through bringing its undeniable moral weight into combat against injustice. That boldness, that courage is needed more and more today, and we hope as we remember and honour President Mandela, we recall his words, 'It is in your hands.' What would Madiba say? Pandor said the Nelson Mandela Foundation, which she now chairs, often gets asked what Mandela would say or do on certain issues if he were alive today. 'We, too, ask this question of ourselves. In the context of my call here today, the question arises – What kind of world would he be prepared to make good trouble for? Drawing on his life and work, and personal reflections, we believe that it would be a just world. 'A world where justice does not kneel to the rich and powerful; where our collective upliftment takes precedence over individual privilege; where the benefits and burdens of our society are equally shared; where our privilege and personal biases do not sway us from being just; and where our like or dislike of someone does not hinder us from doing what is right in relation to them. This is the kind of world that we need to make good trouble for,' Pandor said. ALSO READ: WATCH: 'SA showing world we have embraced constitutional democracy' − Pandor
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
Trust in the judiciary: South Africa's crisis of confidence
President Cyril Ramaphosa appointed Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga to chair the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into allegations of corruption in the criminal justice system. Ramaphosa and the ANC have demonstrated that an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution is politically meaningless, says the writer. Image: Independent Media Archives Prof. Sipho Seepe South Africans live in hope. For seven nerve-wracking days, they waited patiently for President Cyril Ramaphosa to address them on one of the most pressing crises the country has faced since 1994. A week earlier, Lt. Gen. Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi had placed the entire criminal justice system on trial. Mkhwanazi implicated the Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu, top brass, correctional services, senior politicians, and members of the judiciary in an intricate web of crime syndicates and drug cartels. The allegations put the country on the knife-edge. This is the stuff that collapses governments. When Ramaphosa finally faced the nation, the address was characteristically and predictably underwhelming. All opposition parties took potshots at Ramaphosa. Those who were disappointed in Ramaphosa's utterances have themselves to blame. First, Ramaphosa is not a man of courage. He has no backbone. Placed in a prickly situation, his instinct is to choose ANC's interests over those of the country. Second, Ramaphosa and the ANC have demonstrated that an oath to uphold and protect the constitution is politically meaningless. Third, Ramaphosa does not come with clean hands. The Phala Phala farmgate scandal must have weighed heavily on his mind. The independent parliamentary panel, comprising luminaries in law, found Ramaphosa to be possibly guilty of serious misconduct of violating section 96(2)(b) by acting in a way that is inconsistent with his office. Ramaphosa was also found to have violated section 96(2)(b) by exposing himself to a situation involving a conflict between his official responsibilities and his private business. The panel concluded that. 'Viewed as a whole, the information presented to the Panel, prima facie, establishes that (1) There was a deliberate intention not to investigate the commission of the crimes committed at Phala Phala openly.' The damning findings by the former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo-led panel have not triggered the usual knee-jerk reaction that we have come to expect from the self-appointed custodians of constitutionalism. If anything, they have been conspicuously silent and absent. Confronted by the ever-lingering prospect of possible impeachment of Ramaphosa over the farmgate scandal, the ANC did what it does best. It closed ranks and squashed parliament's attempt to establish a Multi-Party Committee to investigate its leader. An annoyed Thabo Mbeki wrote. 'Are we [the ANC] 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'. There is no way that Ramaphosa was going to throw Mchunu, one of his supporters, under the bus without facing serious political repercussions. The establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry was the only safe route open to Ramaphosa. It enables Ramaphosa to postpone addressing a tricky political question of dispensing with Mchunu's services. Be that as it may, the inquiry should not prevent the police from conducting criminal investigations against those implicated in the alleged commission of crimes. Neither does the commission absolve parliament of its oversight responsibility. 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 ✕ With a president burdened by allegations of possible criminality, it would be foolhardy to expect that the recommendations of the Madlanga Judicial Commission of Inquiry will be taken seriously. That the country can be held in suspense by a President who has proved to be a constitutional delinquent reflects the pervasive sense of lack of accountability, paralysis, and resignation that grips the nation. South Africans deserve Ramaphosa. No self-respecting country would allow this. South Africans have expressed a sense of inquiry-fatigue. They have witnessed far too many commissions without any of them leading to discernible positive effects. Some commissions were demonstrably weaponised to target certain individuals disliked by the establishment. Ordinarily, had it not been for the fact that Mkhwanazi implicated judges in the commission of corrupt activities, the establishment of a judicial commission would be unquestionable. Matters become complex if one considers the fact that the very judiciary had decided that South Africans cannot be entrusted with information relating to who funded President Ramaphosa's 2017 ANC presidential candidacy. Mkhwanazi's allegations lend credence to the speculations that the reason the CR17 files are sealed is that they may implicate some members of the judiciary or their family members. Ramaphosa is lucky. Each time he asks the courts to seal matters that relate to him, the courts oblige. This raises several questions. What happened to transparency being the lifeblood of democracy? If Ramaphosa is innocent as he pretends, why rush to the courts for cover? Who are the funders and beneficiaries of the CR17 funds? The tendency to obfuscate issues whenever Ramaphosa is involved played itself out at the Constitutional Court. Instead of zeroing in on the bigger picture, the country's esteemed jurists inordinately debated whether the parliamentary panel had established a prima facie or sufficient evidence. Their colleague, Justice Owen Rogers, would have none of it. He contended. 'A person loses 8.7 million Rand, they would want to know who the investigating officer is, and has it been reported to the police. Is there a case pending? It is a common cause that there wasn't… There was a deliberate decision because the president wanted to keep secret the source of the money; that's the background to where the panel was coming from.' This invariably raises the perennial question: Who judges the judges? The former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng answered that question when he contended that 'one of the things we needed to do as judges is to give reasons for our decisions that an ordinary man can understand. You must be worried when you read a judgment, and you are struggling to make sense of it.... We ought to know that partly, we account to the public through our judgments. Now, if you write in such a way that the public can't even understand what you are doing, what kind of accountability is that? We don't write for lawyers. We don't account to lawyers only; we account to every South African citizen.' The question becomes pertinent given society's growing mistrust of the judiciary. According to the 2018 Afrobarometer survey, 32% of South Africans suspect that judges are involved in corruption. In 2002, the level of mistrust was 15%. Responding to the 2021 Afrobarometer report on the society's loss of confidence in the judiciary, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya argued that 'the judiciary itself needs to do an introspection and check if we are to blame for this change of attitude towards the institution.' The chair of a commission of inquiry must be beyond reproach for the commission to enjoy legitimacy and credibility. For now, we can only speculate. And the picture is not rosy. * 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
16 hours ago
- IOL News
Point of view: why the Fair Pay Bill could transform recruitment practices in South Africa
The Fair Pay Bill aims to revolutionise recruitment in South Africa by prohibiting employers from asking for salary history, promoting transparency and equity in pay practices. This article explores the implications of the Bill for job seekers and employers alike. Have you ever been asked to submit your payslip by a prospective employer, before you've even sat down for the interview? For many South Africans, it's a routine (and often frustrating) part of the job search. But that could soon change. The recently tabled Fair Pay Bill aims to put an end to this outdated practice and usher in a more equitable era of recruitment. If passed, it would prohibit employers from requesting your current or previous salary history and instead require them to be upfront about what they're willing to pay. In short, transparency becomes the rule, not the exception. According to Norma Mazibuko, partner, and Amandla Makhongwana, senior associate at Bowmans South Africa: 'This is a game-changer for both employers and job seekers and, if passed, is set to reshape recruitment, pay practices, and workplace culture across the country.' That statement isn't just hopeful, it's a challenge to long-standing hiring norms. Mazibuko and Makhongwana say South Africa isn't alone in rethinking how pay is structured. The European Union's Pay Transparency Directive is set for roll-out by June 2026, while several US states have already banned questions about salary history. The trend is clear: the world is moving towards fairer pay, and we'd be wise not to be left behind. What's powerful about the Fair Pay Bill is its emphasis on the root causes of inequality. Historically, linking new salaries to previous ones has trapped many, especially women, the youth, and people from marginalised communities, in a cycle of underpayment. Start low, stay low. If each new offer is based on an already disadvantaged benchmark, how do you ever break the cycle? And yet, in many HR departments across the country, this remains standard practice. Some would argue that knowing a candidate's pay history helps assess market value or avoid overspending. Yet this line of thinking contradicts the spirit of the Employment Equity Act, 1998 (EEA), and does little to close pay gaps. As Mazibuko and Makhongwana point out, the Bill 'is in line with this growing movement towards increased pay transparency.' It also reframes the conversation entirely: instead of asking what you used to earn, employers are being nudged to ask, what is this role worth, and what can this person bring to it? And merit-based pay? It thrives under this model because decisions are no longer anchored to arbitrary past figures but built around skills, potential, and responsibility. Key Highlights of the Bill: No more salary history questions: Employers may only consider past pay if a formal offer has already been made and the candidate initiates the disclosure. Pay ranges must be advertised: Vague terms like 'market-related' will no longer cut it. Candidates will know upfront what the job is worth. Transparent communication: Employees will be able to discuss pay openly, breaking down taboos and secrecy. Documented pay structures: Employers will need clear records of salary bands and justifications for pay decisions. It's not just about compliance. It's about modernising how we talk about pay and fairness. As employment law experts at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr (CDH) notes, the EEA 'aims to eliminate unfair discrimination and implement policies that correct historical disadvantages experienced by black people, women, and people with disabilities.' Yes, some employers may face new challenges: assessing value in specialised sectors without historic anchors, or losing the upper hand in salary negotiations. But perhaps it's time we stopped treating equity as a burden and started seeing it as an investment. Another promising ripple effect of the Bill is how it subtly intersects with broader conversations about the difference between minimum wage and a living wage. Is a legally defined minimum enough to cover housing, food, transport, and school fees? Or should we reframe wage structures entirely to reflect dignity and sustainability? The Fair Pay Bill invites employers and policymakers to ask these deeper questions. If enacted, this Bill will be more than legislative housekeeping. It will challenge the status quo, level the playing field, and build stronger trust between employers and the workforce. And in a country still working toward economic justice, that shift is not only overdue, it's necessary. * Maleke is the editor of Personal Finance. PERSONAL FINANCE
