Tshwane Municipality establishes mayoral sub-committee to look into formalising 17 illegal townships
JOHANNESBURG - The Tshwane Municipality has established a mayoral subcommittee to look into formalising 17 illegal townships within the capital's borders.
The municipality said that some of these settlements were established without following the municipality's zoning regulations.
This included the white Afrikaner-only settlement of Kleinfontein, which has seen renewed calls to be abolished.
The mayoral subcommittee will bring together the MMCs for human settlements, spatial planning, utilities and community safety.
They've been tasked with engaging the affected communities and drawing up a draft policy document that will be considered by the Tshwane council.
Tshwane Deputy Mayor Eugene Modise said that each settlement would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
"They differ, they are not the same. You will see Leeuwfontein, it's a more privileged people who have built expensive houses but they are willing to come to the party so that we can formalise them. Those which are illegal, we are going to formalise in June, we will be formalising the Marry me [informal settlement]."
The illegal white-Afrikaner-only settlement of Kleinfontein has welcomed the establishment of the subcommittee, saying it would bring much-needed clarity on its legal status.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
10 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Chief Rabbi Goldstein abuses legal and religious concepts in attack on Ramaphosa
On 21 May 2025, President Donald Trump's Oval Office was yet again turned into the set of a reality television show livestreamed into the homes of many millions of viewers all over the world. The meeting between the US president and South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa quickly shifted gear from the initial pleasantries to spectacular political theatre as Trump played video material purporting to be evidence of a 'white genocide' in South Africa. This included footage of Julius Malema in a packed football stadium chanting 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer' and a 'cemetery with 1,000 white crosses' that turned out to be a memorial commemorating the murder of two farmers. As this political theatre was taking place in the White House, a real-time genocide was unfolding in Gaza with Israel's relentless bombardment, its humanitarian blockade of food, water and medical aid and its refusal to comply with international court rulings. In the face of these developments, and an intensification of international pressure and criticism of Israel, South Africa's chief rabbi, Warren Goldstein, decided it was time to respond. In his Facebook video message Goldstein accused Ramaphosa of many things, including allowing a 'South African genocide' to take place. Although the chief rabbi refrained from using the term 'white genocide', and acknowledged that all South Africans are victims of violent crime, he appeared to endorse the key talking points of Trump's Maga movement and South African right-wing, white nationalist agendas. This played right into the accusations of 'white genocide' plied by right-wing Afrikaner organisations to discredit the South African government's transformation policies, especially its land reform and employment equity programmes. But the chief rabbi went much further than these white nationalists. In his relentless attack on the South African President, he insisted that the 'shame' and 'humiliation' that Ramaphosa had experienced in the Oval Office on 21 May 2025 was 'divine retribution' for South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This is how the chief rabbi described how God choreographed what happened in the White House meeting: 'As I watched the White House spectacle unfold, as I watched President Ramaphosa literally squirm in his seat, visibly uncomfortable, humiliated, as President Trump accused him of genocide in his own country, I couldn't help but think, I'm not a prophet and I do not presume to know the will of God, and yet the thought kept crossing my mind – this moment, this humiliation, felt biblical. It felt like divine retribution. It felt like justice for a different earlier sin. 'Because Ramaphosa and the ANC stood on a different international stage and falsely accused the Jewish state, the State of Israel, of genocide, a lie, a libel, a defamation of an entire nation. And now, in front of the whole world, they themselves are being accused of genocide. This time a true genocide demonstrated by the cold, brutal facts of a murder rate spiralling out of control. The blood of countless victims on their hands and their total inability to protect South Africans of any race or background.' In this wide-ranging video message Goldstein held Ramaphosa personally accountable for Malema's chants of 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer', claiming that he 'has never publicly condemned the chant as hate speech, not even in the Oval Office when he had every opportunity and motive to do so'. This was followed by an assault on the South African Constitutional Court for not ruling that Malema's chants are hate speech: 'This judgment casts a shadow on the integrity and legacy of the Constitutional Court and makes a mockery of their role as the guardians of human rights in South Africa.' Although the violent crime statistics in South Africa are truly shocking, Goldstein's claims of a 'South African genocide' radically dilutes and relativises the legal definition and meaning of the term. This constitutes a dangerous trivialisation of genocidal catastrophes, including the Holocaust. It thereby threatens to undermine the very precise meaning of genocide, a concept which was introduced into international law after the Holocaust by Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish Polish lawyer. Lemkin's concept helped establish the 1948 Genocide Convention, which legally defines the act of genocide. As the son of a German Jewish refugee whose entire family was murdered in Auschwitz and Riga, I appreciate the importance of Lemkin's precise definition of genocide. Using the notion of a 'South African genocide' to refer to a violent crime crisis undermines this precision. Most international law experts would agree that Hamas perpetrated horrific war crimes against civilians in Israel on 7 October 2023. At the same time, there is currently a growing consensus among Holocaust and genocide scholars that the Israeli military is indeed perpetrating genocide in Gaza. This assessment draws on the very specific criteria that Lemkin used to define the crime of genocide which, according to the Genocide Convention, consists of any of five 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'. These acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births and forcibly transferring children out of the group. In terms of this very precise definition, genocide is a crime of special intent (dolus specialis) that deliberately targets a protected group. How can the unacceptably high violent crime levels that impact on all South Africans possibly constitute genocide in terms of this definition? Just as legal concepts need to be used with precision, one would also expect that the use of religious concepts needs to meet stringent definitions. It is therefore surprising to discover the flagrant abuse of religious concepts by the chief rabbi when he claimed that the shame and humiliation experienced by Ramaphosa in the White House was 'divine retribution' for an earlier sin – taking Israel to the ICJ. I will quote a lengthy passage from the video that conveys the lengths to which the chief rabbi was prepared to go to stretch the meanings of both 'genocide' and biblical notions of divine justice: '… It felt like what our sages called Midah Keneged Midah, measure for measure, a precise justice, a reckoning. And as that thought took hold, another verse came to mind. I kept hearing the words of Genesis in 12:3: 'Those who bless you will be blessed, and those who curse you will be cursed.' 'President Ramaphosa and the ANC cursed Israel, and now it feels as though they are being cursed. You can feel it in the air, in the sense of decay and despair, you can feel the weight of a divine curse settling on this Presidency… In the heavenly court, you will stand accused of presiding over the human suffering of all those who were murdered on your watch. The King of All Kings will ask you what you did to stop the carnage, the genocide… and you will be held eternally accountable for every moment of human suffering you caused through your callous neglect, through your omissions and commissions…' What is happening here? Why is the chief rabbi, the spiritual leader of South African Jews, so brazenly abusing the specific definitions and meanings of legal and religious concepts to denounce the President and the Constitutional Court? Is it simply to score political points? How will such divisive speech, which is uttered on behalf of the whole Jewish community, make Jews any more secure in South Africa? It is quite conceivable that the chief rabbi – like so many other defenders of Israel's actions in Gaza – is becoming increasingly defensive and desperate as international public opinion and Western governments become more critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. The chief rabbi's false and unconsidered accusations and condemnations appear to be a radical displacement and distraction from the horrific realities of a genocide unfolding daily in Gaza. DM
Daily Maverick
10 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Du Toit verdict highlights the persistent shadow of apartheid in SA's universities
Three years after the barbaric incident at Stellenbosch University where a white student, Theuns du Toit, urinated on a black student's study material, a court has acquitted him of criminal charges. A legally sound outcome according to the courts of law, but in the court of public opinion one that fails to address the collective pain Du Toit's actions evoked among many students who have been on the receiving end of humiliating acts because of the colour of their skin. In an opinion piece I wrote at the time of this incident, I referred to 'the outrage sparked by Du Toit's barbaric act', and the pain and trauma 'that his actions triggered among many black and brown students'. For many of these students, Du Toit's entering Babalo Ndwayana's room and urinating on his study material was not just a despicable act by an intoxicated student. The act carried the burden of history and became an echo of the violence of apartheid's dehumanising treatment. It is also a reminder of their own collective experiences of the insidious violence of racial humiliation and marginalisation that they have encountered in lecture halls and administrative offices, in residences, and in the wider Stellenbosch, as recounted in testimonies to the commission of inquiry that was chaired by Justice Sisi Khampepe. The State may not have been able to prove that Du Toit acted with criminal intent when he went into Ndwayana's room. But the impact of his vulgar act exposed the ever-present tension between progress — the moral and psychological possibility of change — and the historical burden and the sheer reality of the legacies of an apartheid past that intrudes into this progress, pushing back against change. What has become increasingly clear is that this case, in the public imagination, is no longer just about one student's intoxicated behaviour or another student's quest for recognition. Proxies Du Toit and Ndwayana have come to represent more than themselves. They are proxies for a deeper, unresolved confrontation between our country's apartheid past and its unfulfilled democratic promise. The national outrage and political polarisation that erupted after Du Toit's acquittal attests to this. For many historically marginalised students — at Stellenbosch University (SU) and elsewhere — Du Toit urinating on Ndwayana's study material became an embodied symbol of the enduring indignities that echo from apartheid and persist in their everyday encounters, the subtle, insidious acts of exclusion and humiliation that undermine their dignity and sense of worth. Du Toit, in turn, has become a rallying figure, his story a cause célèbre for those who feel that transformation has gone 'too far', or that white identity, especially Afrikaner identity, is under threat and must be defended at all costs. It is tempting, in moments like these, to reduce the complexity of this moment into a single narrative as a problem of 'racism at SU'. That was the framing offered by Makhi Feni, chairperson of the Select Committee on Education, in his remarks about the Du Toit verdict in Parliament last week, that 'racism at Stellenbosch University' should be 'pinned on old white lecturers'. He went further to dismiss the urination incident as nothing more than 'a clear case of drunkenness and misbehaving youth'. For a senior government official in higher education, these remarks are not only irresponsible; they reflect a denial of the depth of institutional transformation work still needed across our universities, including the role his own department must play in supporting these efforts. Dismissing this merely as the recklessness of an intoxicated student is a negation of the experiences of those for whom Du Toit's actions evoked long-silenced memories of insidious acts of violence against their dignity — and of the serious work that Stellenbosch University has already undertaken in trying to confront its past. Enduring challenges The findings of the Khampepe Commission testify to this. Playing the alcohol card will not resolve the enduring challenges we face in our efforts to address the wounds of history that erupt on our university campuses. There is a moment in the recording that Ndwayana made of the urination incident where Du Toit refers to him as 'boy'. According to his lawyer, Dirk van Niekerk, Du Toit cannot be held responsible for what he said or did. 'My client was intoxicated,' he reportedly explained in statements in the media, and furthermore, that in passing its verdict, the court 'understood the situation very well regarding his intoxication'. But even though Du Toit's calling Ndwayana 'boy' in the recording was rendered inconsequential in a court of law, used as a form of address, the word in this context is an echo of the historical violence of apartheid when black men were infantilised as a way of asserting white superiority. It should thus not be glossed over simply as a reflection of youthful intoxication. Of course, I am not suggesting that Du Toit's use of the term 'proves' racist intent — the court has already ruled on this issue. Rather, as a term that carries the burden of historical resonance, the word is part of apartheid's lexicon of social domination. Du Toit's use of the term points to the enduring legacy of what I refer to as the psychic violence of the apartheid mind. Many students saw themselves in Ndwayana. While the legal slate has been wiped clean for Du Toit, the collective trauma and outrage his actions triggered remain unresolved, silenced and pushed underground, but will continue to play out in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, as with all historical traumas. The public debate about this issue is now dominated by the narrative of Du Toit's legal victory. The story of how all of this is affecting Ndwayana, and how he, and others who identify with his experience, are holding up in the face of it all has been overshadowed by the looming spectre of Du Toit's civil claim. As Judith Butler has argued, whose voices are allowed to shape public discourse tells us something fundamental about whose lives are considered valuable. As we brace for the possibility of a civil suit from Du Toit's lawyers, Stellenbosch University would do well to resist the temptation to settle behind closed doors in the name of reputational damage control. Doing so would not only silence the public debate that must continue about the emergence of these problems in our institutions, but also risk reinforcing the very dynamics that perpetuate the fault lines that keep confronting us with the unfinished business of our past, which will remain unresolved unless we face this history and its 'afterlife' with moral courage. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, for all its flaws, offers insights that show the possibility of creating a space for acknowledgement, truth telling, and moral accountability, the kind of reckoning that law alone cannot deliver. DM
The South African
17 hours ago
- The South African
Are second batch of refugees ONLY white South Africans?
A second batch of South African 'refugees' has arrived in the US under President Donald Trump's resettlement programme. The offer is open to all 'racial minorities' in South Africa, including Afrikaners, who believe they have been persecuted. But do the numbers reflect that? According to reports, a second batch of 'refugees' arrived in the US last week. The group consists of nine white South Africans and their families. Jaco Kleynhans, of the Afrikaner rights group Solidarity Movement, claimed that the group travelled on a commercial flight. While it's not clear if other races will be included in the group, there has been speculation that many Afrikaners will be part of the programme. Kleynhans told the media: 'Several more groups will fly to the USA over the next few weeks. The US Embassy in Pretoria, in collaboration with the State Department in Washington DC, is currently processing 8,000 applications. And we expect many more Afrikaner refugees to travel to the USA over the next few months. 'They are settling in states across the USA, but particularly southern states such as Texas, North and South Carolina, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska.' He continued: 'Our primary focus is not refugee status for Afrikaners. But rather to find ways to ensure a free, safe, and prosperous future for Afrikaners in South Africa. We remain 100% convinced that South Africa can and must create a home for all its people.' While many Afrikaners and white South Africans have seemingly been prioritised in the group, other smaller communities are also welcome to apply for refugee status in the US. Last month, the US Embassy issued a statement detailing the resettlement programme, which was extended to 'racial minorities' in South Africa. Despite initially being targeted at Afrikaner farmers and white people, US authorities have since included coloured, Indian, and 'mixed-race' South Africans. Applicants must prove that they are 'persecuted' South Africans who are victims of 'racial discrimination'. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 . Subscribe to The South African web
