Ramaphosa's proteges win ANC conference
President Cyril Ramaphosa's political clique in Limpopo has won the first ANC regional elective conference in the Sekhukhune region.
The two-day ANC Sekhukhune regional elective conference was held on Thursday and Friday at the Boiketlong Lodge, outside Jane-Furse.
On Thursday night, the conference elected executive mayor for the Sekhukhune district municipality Minah Bahula as party regional chair, mayor for the Elias Motsoaledi local municipality, David Tladi as deputy, ANC bigwig Tala Mathope as secretary, mayor for the mining-rich Fetakgomo/Tubatse local municipality Eddy Maila as deputy secretary, and mayor for the Ephraim Mogale local municipality Given Moimane as treasurer.
The five were elected unopposed and uncontested.
Discipline
Speaking in her opening address during the conference, ANC Limpopo member of the provincial executive committee (PEC) Dr Phophi Ramathuba, who doubles as the province's Premier praised the unity and discipline that was displayed by delegates from branch general meetings (BGMs) and throughout the conference.
She said the region was a true example of the kind of discipline the ANC needed during elective conferences.
Ramathuna said she wished the same conduct could be seen in three other regions (Vhembe, Norman Mashabane and Peter Mokaba), which are yet to hold their respective elective conferences from the beginning of the winter season in May.
'We are proud of your conduct and we wish other regions could copy from you. With this kind of behaviour you can go far. As a deployee from the province to your region during BGMS en route to this conference, we had only five disputes, three of which were later withdrawn. The remaining two disputes were discussed and settled.
'Bravo to the ANC Sekhukhune, led by a woman leader – Mme Minah Bahula. My sister, you have delivered an incident-free conference. Some conferences have been characterised by chairs and fists flying in the air in the past. You are the rock,' she said.
Spokesperson for the ANC in the region, Samuel Uwane said a total of 310 voting delegates from the region's four sub-regions attended the conference.
He said 117 branches were audited, 115 convened their meetings. A total of 92 branches had successful meetings, while 25 branches could not go through as they failed to form a quorum.
ALSO READ: ANC Limpopo dissolves three subregions amid instability
A message to the new leadership
Earlier in the week, The Citizen spoke to a few independent community members about the outcome of the conference and their expectations from the new leadership.
Sticks Mogale of Ga-Marishane said he expects the new leadership to fight the scourge of poverty, unemployment, poor water provision, gender-based violence, and bad roads, which remain the biggest problems facing communities in Sekhukhune.
Another resident, Riot Nchabeleng of Ga-Moloi said he expects the new leadership to create jobs for the people of Sekhukhune.
'We have about 27 operating mines in this region. But when you go there, most people working in these mines are from outside of Sekhukhune. The new regional executive committee must prioritise locals and outsiders later,' he said.
Jane Rakubu of Phokwane called on Bahula and her new leadership to fight against crime and the use of drugs among youth in villages and townships.
NOW READ: Limpopo ANC approves tainted MECs
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
If BEE goes, how do we address racialised inequality?
The past few months have seen an unprecedented attack on Black Economic Empowerment. Strangely, the voices that you would expect to defend it have been oddly muted. If we accept that BEE has too many problems to work properly, it is time for a proper national debate on what could replace it. As predicted several months ago, Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) is now under intense fire. This is partly because the ANC has been dramatically weakened, partly because the DA is now in government, and partly because of the Trump administration's attacks on it. Last week, even The Economist opined that it was time for our country to stop BEE. On Tuesday, Deputy President Paul Mashatile said in an answer to a parliamentary question that BEE was 'not discriminatory'. While he was trying to defend BEE, he clearly missed the point. BEE is absolutely discriminatory. That is why we have it. To reduce our racialised inequality. But, in a comment by Professor William Gumede that has been widely quoted, BEE has cost around R1-trillion and yet most black people have not benefited from it in any substantive way (this is likely to be hugely contested). BEE is intensely controversial. Not just because a small group of people have been made rich, but because of what it is: A deliberate attempt to empower one group of people at the expense of another group. No matter the moral legitimacy of such an aim, in any society, to take from one group to give to another leads to huge arguments. This is one of the reasons tax policy can be hugely controversial. The cost of scrapping As a starting point, it may be important to ask: if there is no BEE and no other measure of race-based redress, what would happen? The economy would probably grow a little more quickly than it is now. Companies could simply scrap all the measures they take to qualify for BEE points. This might make them, and their owners, richer. But there would be a huge cost. For example, some of the big banks insure the geysers of people they grant mortgages to (this is to protect the value of the property they are lending money against). As a BEE measure, they then use a long list of black-owned suppliers to repair those geysers if they break down. The big banks would probably find it much more efficient to use one big company to fix all these geysers. These suppliers, usually the first in their families to own a small business, would lose out dramatically. Most would probably have to close. The consequence of this is that all these people, and their extended families, who they support, would lose faith in the democratic project. This would be just one example of how inequality, both racialised inequality and general inequality, would be re-entrenched. That would lead to greater demands for political and economic change, and perhaps, more calls for some kind of radical, or even revolutionary change. The impact test The tools that the state has to really make a change for one group, but not for another, are essentially quite limited. And each tool would have to satisfy certain tests. The first is, would it work? In other words, does the policy really make a substantive difference for a large number of people? This is the test that BEE arguably fails. Another test is whether such a tool would be both legitimate and fair. Legitimacy is absolutely vital. It means you essentially have to convince white people that they must be treated differently from black people. It seems unlikely that even Siya Kolisi and Eben Etzebeth could convince most white people to accept this. There are alternatives to BEE, all of which have serious problems. Government could decide to radically change the tax system and essentially try to tax white people more than black people. One of the main arguments against that, apart from the fact that it would lead to intense debates about racial designations, is that there are obvious examples of some white people who were born into poorer homes than some black people. That would fail the fairness test. There could be other strategies. Government could decide that our geography, still defined by apartheid in so many ways, provides a proxy for race. Thus, as a deliberate strategy, the Basic Education Department could decide to spend more money per child in rural and township schools than on children in suburban schools. While this might seem unfair, the argument could be that communities in suburbs can just increase the contribution they already make to the education of their children (through what are often called 'Governing Body Teachers' – teachers paid by the parents, not government). Although that would be staggeringly unfair to black parents who have made huge sacrifices to get their children into these schools, and to keep them there. There are other problems, too. At least one would be that we would not know whether it had been effective for a full generation. Which might defeat the purpose, which is to show that there is a measure of race-based redress that actually works. From BEE to BIG? There are other ways to look at this problem. They could be controversial in themselves. It might be seen as legitimate by the vast majority of voters to remove the idea of race-based redress in favour of a different measure to help improve the lives of millions of the poorest people in our country. So, for example, BEE could be removed at the same time a substantive Basic Income Grant (BIG) is introduced. In other words, there would be a deal (sort of). Businesses would no longer have to comply with BEE, which would allow them to be more efficient and make more profit. Those profits would, in turn, help to fund a BIG that would make a real difference to the lives of millions of people. While there appears to be no public polling on this, it might be worth asking if the millions of people who receive the R370/month Social Relief of Distress Grant would prefer that money in their pockets to retaining the current model of BEE. Considering that these people clearly need more help than most of those who currently benefit from BEE, there may be a compelling moral argument in this direction. But that might be creating a false binary. And it would not satisfy the demand for race-based redress, although it would help to reduce inequality. The attacks on BEE will not stop. But the intensity of our inequality, as racialised as it still is, demands measures to address it. A window is now opening for a proper debate on what might be more effective. It's vital that we grab it. DM
IOL News
10 hours ago
- IOL News
South Africa's G20 Presidency: Strategic diplomacy in a shifting global order
South Africa has taken the G20 Presidency at a time when the global order is in flux, with experts saying that President Cyril Ramaphosa will have to engage in the kind of strategic diplomacy witnessed during his visit to the White House. Image: GCIS South Africa, as chair of the G20 Summit 2025, at a time when the international system is plagued by uncertainty due to the shifting global order, needs to manage its relationships with various powers strategically, balancing its interests with the West and the East to achieve desired outcomes, experts say. The Group of Twenty (G20) is an international forum of both developing and developed countries that seeks to find solutions to global economic and financial issues, and its Presidency rotates annually among the members. Dr Sonja Theron, a lecturer in Security Studies at the University of Pretoria's Department of Political Sciences, said as the chair of the G20, South Africa is given an agenda-setting role and can influence which topics make it to the table. 'The G20 is ultimately a forum – a place for conversation. The directions those conversations take will be influenced by existing relationships and power dynamics, where South Africa holds some, but not extensive, agency and power. And ultimately, conversation may or may not lead to action,' Theron said. She noted that the international system is plagued with uncertainty due to the shifting global order. To navigate this to achieve desired outcomes, South Africa will have to carefully understand what leverage it does and does not have, and use this in directed and intentional efforts, and engage in the kind of strategic diplomacy witnessed during President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit to the White House, Theron said. She added that South Africa has often tried to position itself as a bridging actor between multiple forums and global camps such as the G7 and BRICS members within the G20, but this has often led to having to walk a fine line between partners, and Russia and the USA are prime examples. 'It is crucial that South Africa not overplay its hand and focus on where it has influence to exercise agency. This does not mean that South Africa needs to abandon its goals or principles but rather think strategically on where and how these can be advanced. 'We are witnessing a global withdrawal from multilateral processes and solutions. As such, South Africa should focus on incremental but transformative steps towards a more equitable world order. This could include initiatives that focus on more effective information gathering, sharing, and analysis, such as the Common Carbon Credit Data Model, the Borrowers' Forum, and a Panel of Technical Experts to uncover the barriers to development in the global debt and finance system,' Theron said. On South Africa's presidency push for a more robust and transparent funding mechanism for countries affected by climate change, she said, such a large-scale initiative would be difficult to achieve in the current global climate. 'Not only are global powers less inclined to multilateralism, they are also less interested or incentivised to provide financial assistance. To achieve this, South Africa would need to build or leverage its relationships with the Global South and with global powers to ensure that the issue is championed across multiple forums and decision-making platforms,' Theron added. On the de-dollarisation as a central theme in the BRICS, she said, 'Taking a hard stance on de-dollarisation, in line with the BRICS agenda, will alienate the US further. South Africa's options are then to either take a more moderate stance or prepare for the fallout of a strong position.' Professor Fulufhelo Netswera, the executive dean for the Faculty of Management Sciences at the Durban University of Technology, said the G20's participation of South Africa and its leadership will not yield anything substantive. 'The president of the US is not going to come here. So that in itself tells us that they don't care about South Africa's Presidency of the G20, and they are not going to care about the outcomes of that gathering,' Netswera said. He highlighted that he doesn't think that the G20 has ever done anything meaningful, if 'we' go historically by resolutions taken. 'Not much has been implemented coming from this group. It's a good group. I think big nations need to sit now and again, remind themselves about their commitment to humanity and to not destroy each other, and trade fairly, which is all good and nice,' he said. On the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions, he said all the countries, including BRICS nations, have been talking about the lack of reform of the United Nations, the Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organisation.
IOL News
11 hours ago
- IOL News
'Distorted and Inaccurate': South Africa dismantles US Human Rights report allegations
President Cyril Ramaphosa is set to meet with Trump, where he must defend South Africa's sovereignty against aggressive US policies. Image: IOL Graphics The South African government has firmly denied allegations contained in the 2024 United States Human Rights Report, rejecting claims that white farmers are being specifically targeted in racially motivated attacks. The controversy has revived a long-standing false narrative, one previously amplified by high-profile figures such as US President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk. Trump also threatened to skip the SA G20 summit later this year because 'bad things are happening in South Africa'. Musk, in turn, has echoed similar sentiments in public statements and online, warning of an alleged 'white genocide' in the country. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) labelled the assertions as 'distorted and inaccurate,' reaffirming its commitment to a transparent, evidence-based approach to rural safety. In a revised statement issued this week, DIRCO spokesperson, Chrispin Phiri, clarified what it described as "misleading interpretations" of crime data in South Africa's farming communities. 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 US report had suggested a pattern of racial targeting in rural attacks—a claim the South African government says is not supported by official statistics. 'We address all forms of crime, which remain a significant challenge for all of our citizens, regardless of race or location,' said Phiri. 'The suggestion that these crimes represent a concerted practice of racially motivated attacks is not borne out by the facts.' According to the South African Police Service (SAPS), only six murders were reported in farming communities between January and March 2025. Of these, two were farmers, three were employees, and one was a farm dweller—evidence that violence in rural areas is not racially selective but affects all individuals living and working in those communities. The government also aimed at domestic groups—specifically AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement—for fuelling divisive rhetoric. Both organisations have publicly accused the South African government of attempting to "destroy Afrikaners" and of turning a blind eye to farm attacks. These claims have sparked widespread public outrage and drawn criticism from across the political spectrum for misrepresenting facts and deepening social tensions. 'The claim that the government is trying to destroy Afrikaners is not only false—it is inflammatory and dangerous,' the Presidency said earlier this year. 'We will not allow any organisation, local or international, to spread lies about our country.'
