McKenzie demands answers on the employment of foreign nationals on Robben Island
Members of the portfolio committee on Sports, Arts & Culture say it is essential for staff at the Robben Island Museum to understand the correct history of the Island and South Africa.
The Minister of Sports, Arts & Culture, Gayton McKenzie, says his department will investigate the hiring of foreign nationals at the Robben Island Museum.
McKenzie was speaking at a parliament portfolio committee meeting on Friday.
He was responding to allegations that foreign nationals were being prioritised more than South Africans regarding vacancies at the museum.
'When I became minister, the first thing I asked was, 'How many foreign nationals are there in the department?' I was told none.
ALSO READ: 'Who did they call?' – Gayton McKenzie on claims of interference in Joshlin Smith investigation
'I am busy drafting a letter to the ADG and I will CC Robben Island Museum on it. I want to assure the committee that I will handle this matter personally and consider it dealt with today. We cannot have a situation where foreign nationals are being given jobs while our children do not have jobs in the Western Cape,' he said.
MPs demand answers on employment processes at Robben Island Museum
Some portfolio committee members of parliament (MPs) raised concerns about the knowledge of South African history displayed by some foreign nationals employed at the museum.
They also requested that the Robben Island Museum provide parliament with a report on the number of foreign nationals hired, how they were hired and why other candidates were rejected.
The acting CEO of the Robben Island Museum, Jonty Tshipa, told the committee that he did not have the number of foreign nationals that have been hired at the top of his head.
'I do not have the numbers at the top of my head, but we have received from the department how many foreign nationals we have. May I request that I should provide accurate information to the committee through the secretary? I do not have the numbers at the top of my head now,' he said.
There are also concerns about the maintenance of buildings on the Island and complaints about the Robben Island ferry.
McKenzie on preservation of history on Robben Island
McKenzie said the Robben Island Museum must be fully functional and equipped because of the expected tourists who will attend the G20 summit later this year in South Africa.
Meanwhile, McKenzie also announced plans to build a wall of remembrance on Robben Island. He said this gesture is to honour all political activists who were locked up on the Island.
'We cannot have people spend half their lives on Robben Island, and there is not even a stone with their name on it. That is not right,' he said.
McKenzie told MPs that he understood the importance of the Robben Island Museum because he himself had played a role in the fight against apartheid.
'I was not just a gangster, I had my own role to play, I may have not been on Robben Island, but I had my role.
NOW READ: SA had to fork out R27.9m for athletes to show their mettle at Olympics – Gayton McKenzie
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Nandipha Magudumana takes fight for freedom to Constitutional Court
Dr Nandipha Magudumana's last ditch attempt to gain her freedom Image: X Dr Nandipha Magudumana is taking her fight for freedom to the Constitutional Court. Magudumana, is accused of helping Thabo Bester escape prison and later, escape from South Africa to Tanzania in 2023. The pair were arrested and brought back to South Africa. On May 16, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed her appeal to have her arrest and deportation declared unlawful. Magudumana, Bester and their co-accused face up to 38 charges including fraud, corruption, money laundering, arson, and defeating the ends of justice. Speaking to Newzroom Afrika, Magudumana's lawyer, Machini Motloung, said following the SCA judgment, he scheduled a consultation with Magudumana where a decision was taken to approach the Constitutional Court for an application for leave to appeal the majority judgment. At the heart of the legal battle, Motloung explained, is common cause that, in terms of the judgment, the South African authorities acted unlawfully by bringing Magudumana back to South Africa "as a disguised extradition." He said the court further made a conclusion of law that Magudumana had consented, as evidenced by her statement to the police at the time of her arrest, in which she expressed a desire to return home. "How she is deemed to have consented could not pass the constitutional master that one cannot consent to an illegality. That is central to the argument. There are other factors in the majority judgment that we are dealing with extensively that we do not agree to, hence we are approaching the court for relief," Motloung said. Motloung explained that the relief they are seeking is to have Magudumana's further detention declared unlawful and set aside. He said Magudumana is hopeful that justice will be served. [email protected] IOL
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Urgent petition launched in South Africa to tackle soaring food prices
Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity Group (PMBEJD) has been mootoring food prices for many years Image: Armand Hough: Independent Newspapers A nationwide petition has been launched calling on the government and retailers to intervene to bring down rising food prices as South Africans are facing a daily battle to feed their families. The action has been brought by United Against Hunger (UAH), which hopes to collect about 100,000 signatures as part of its campaign to reduce food prices. The organisation stated that many families are no longer able to feed themselves, and children are starving. The petition has also been linked with door-to-door campaigns, with affiliates of the union visiting homes to collect signatures and brief residents on the issues of hunger and malnutrition among children. The petition was launched as part of the World Hunger campaigns. Mark Heywood, the leader of UAH, stated that the petition aims to encourage large retailers making significant profits to respond to the moral needs of their customers or to get the government involved in regulating food prices. "The petition is going slower than we had hoped, but we are beginning to engage communities, going door to door in KwaZulu-Natal. Abahlali BaseMjondolo (the shack dwellers' movement) is visiting homes, collecting signatures, and engaging with communities on issues of malnutrition," he said. The 2024 General Household Survey, which was released last week revealed that nearly 14 million South Africans, equivalent to almost a quarter of all households, faced daily hunger last year. The data showed that 22.2% of households reported inadequate or severely inadequate access to food, with the Northern Cape (34.3%), Eastern Cape (31.3%), Mpumalanga (30.4%), and KwaZulu-Natal (23.9%) the most affected provinces. Children are particularly vulnerable. Malnutrition significantly impairs physical and cognitive development, increasing mortality risks and undermining long-term educational and economic outcomes. Heywood said: 'By the age of five, 29% of children have experienced malnutrition and are stunted as a result of not having sufficient food. We know that there are several causes of hunger, and they are complex, but one of the biggest causes is the prices and profiteering off essential foodstuffs." He added that the organisation believes, based on studies by universities, that if food could be made available to poorer people, malnutrition could be significantly reduced. He said they wrote to the CEO of one of the major food stores, urging the company to reduce prices on essential food items for children developing in the early stages of their lives. He emphasised that big companies in the retail sector can afford to reduce prices and are currently making huge profits. "Everyone has a right to sufficient food; that is a constitutional right. If companies that set high food prices are violating the realisation of those rights, then we say the government must regulate not just the quality of food but also the affordability of food to ensure that people in this country do not go hungry. Hunger is a human rights violation; it is not something that we should subject people to because our country produces a surplus of food," he said. Heywood suggested several interventions that can be undertaken, including: Pass legislation to prevent food waste. Reduce food prices Introduce legislation to prevent food wastage Set up a National Food Security and Nutrition Council and finalise the National Plan on Food Security and Nutrition in consultation with communities. Mervyn Abrahams, director of the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity Group, stated that the calls for food prices to be reviewed are genuine. The group has been assessing food affordability for the past few years. "As we have demonstrated before through our Household Affordability Index, food prices continue to rise both on a monthly and annual basis, making it difficult each and every day for many families, especially those in the low-income bracket, to buy essential food items." He added, "We have been consistent in calling for transparency in the food ecosystem primarily out of concern that big business is driven by the sole desire to make profit. This concern arises from an appreciation that when profits are prioritised above everything else, families find themselves having to make difficult choices and compromises when it comes to buying food because of high prices."
Daily Maverick
8 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
In this era of spyware, Parliament must codify safeguards in surveillance law
Considering the proliferation of sophisticated surveillance technologies such as spyware, South Africa has a unique opportunity to implement a meaningful surveillance safeguard that can serve as a model regionally and globally by fixing the flaws in the Rica Bill. It has been more than four years since the South African Parliament began the reform of the Regulation of Interception of Communications Act (Rica). In 2021, the Constitutional Court declared the law unconstitutional and directed additional constitutional safeguards for surveillance. The 36-month timeline set by the court has long past, and warrant applications are delayed or unprocessed, leaving South Africa vulnerable to internal and external threats. A major factor behind this delay is Parliament and the Justice Department's minimalist approach, which conflicts with the court's mandate to address fundamental constitutional problems in the Rica Bill. The original bill passed by Parliament failed to remedy all constitutional flaws, so President Cyril Ramaphosa refused to assent and referred it back to Parliament. As the DA's Werner Horn predicted in 2023, 'the idea of a future wholesale review was a way of delaying the process which was likely to take years'. Considering the proliferation of sophisticated surveillance technologies such as spyware, South Africa has a unique opportunity to implement a meaningful surveillance safeguard that can serve as a model regionally and globally by fixing the flaws in the Rica Bill. This article explains how South Africa can achieve it. Indefinite suspension of notification keeps surveillance secret and grants permanent impunity The first flaw in the Rica Bill is the weak notification system. The introduction of a mandatory notification to surveillance subjects within 90 days of warrant expiration is a positive step; however, the implementation will probably fail. It allows suspension under vague conditions, i.e. whenever a court finds notification 'has the potential to negatively impact national security' for any period the court deems appropriate. Without clear limitations, suspension will be granted in many more cases for much longer than necessary (as found by the European Court of Human Rights in Bulgaria's notification system). Such a broad notification suspension makes accountability and remedy virtually impossible. Consider the case of journalist Sam Sole, a director of the amaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism, who was the plaintiff of the 2021 Constitutional Court case. Like many other targets Sole suspected he was being monitored, but lacked proof. That evidence emerged by good fortune when official intercept extracts were included in documents in another case. Sole's case is far from rare. Right2Know reports case studies where journalists only found out about the surveillance on them 'through accident, coincidence, or via a confidential source — without which it would be impossible to get any recourse'. If surveillance evidence is used in a criminal case, the subject may challenge its legality, but such cases are rare in practice. The Rica Bill does little to change the status quo, leaving the situation where, in Jacques Pauw's words, journalists 'can't do anything' with '(their) phone and emails (being) monitored'. The prospect becomes even more concerning when we consider the persistent instability the intelligence community has faced since 1994. This organisational weakness has been a root cause of surveillance abuse, notably identified by the 2018 Presidential High-Level Review Panel and the 2009 Commission of Inquiry. Yet, while the president-led reforms have led to some positive changes, they remain incomplete. International human rights law requires that people be notified of surveillance without jeopardising government interest The access to remedy is a human right. International and regional bodies consistently stress that states must provide victims of illegal surveillance access to an effective remedy (e.g. UN General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Human Rights Committee [see, recommendations to South Africa ], and African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights). The knowledge of secret surveillance is the first step in achieving a remedy. Suspension thus should be strictly limited when it is necessary and proportionate to a specific legitimate aim, and should be subject to oversight. Notably, the European Court of Human Rights (e.g. in 2024 and 2022), and the European Court of Justice repeatedly clarified that notification must be provided to the surveillance subjects as soon as it can be made without jeopardising the purpose of surveillance. However, the current Rica Bill stands in contrast. It is doubtful that, without a clear condition and upper limit on suspension, notification would be issued immediately after the threat abates. Another problem with the notification system under the Rica Bill is its silence on what should be notified. To ensure access to remedy, the notification must include sufficient information so the surveillance subject could substantiate a claim to have the legality of the surveillance reviewed by a competent body. This, at a minimum, includes details such as who sought and conducted the surveillance, why and when it was done, and what information was obtained. In the case of Sole, while he (because of unique circumstances) learned of the interception, it was not enough for accountability. The government continues to insist that the application document justifying Sole's interception 'cannot be found', leaving Sole still 'left in the dark' as to whether the intrusion was legally valid. A concern that a robust notification system may deter agencies from using interception reflects a lack of understanding among agencies. The system does allow for notification to be suspended when necessary. Training is needed to ensure agencies understand that the notification framework is designed to strike a careful balance between government interests and transparency, and it should be implemented accordingly. Advanced surveillance technologies like spyware make the importance of notification even greater for accountability New tools like spyware make surveillance more intrusive and sophisticated. Spyware enables secret access to any data on a targeted device and even the alteration of data. International human rights experts are concerned that spyware may only be justified by necessity and proportionality principles in extremely limited situations. Spyware, like Pegasus by NSO Group, has been widely abused by governments worldwide to target journalists, human rights defenders, lawyers, and politicians. In South Africa, Ramaphosa's mobile phone was targeted in 2019 by Rwanda using spyware. One of the unique challenges posed by spyware is that of documenting its actual use. Some spyware can self-delete traces of itself on the target device. Moreover, many spyware operations are conducted by private vendors, adding another layer of opacity around who is conducting the surveillance. In fact, many accountability efforts related to Pegasus stem from leaked documents. This unique level of secrecy undermines the effectiveness of accountability mechanisms across the globe. For instance, in Ireland, individuals who believe they are subject to surveillance can appeal to a complaints referee to examine the legality of interception. However, individuals are less likely to realise they are being targeted by spyware. 'One-sided' warrant application process requires safeguards to prevent authorisations based on false claims The other major defect in the Rica Bill is the lack of solutions to ex parte — or one-sided — hearings. Under Rica's existing procedures, the government applies for a warrant in an ex parte hearing with only the judge and government representative present. While the exclusion of the surveillance subject from the process is necessary to achieve the goal of interception, this is a departure from traditional adversarial hearings where the judge can hear from advocates on either side of the issue. As a result, in the Constitutional Court's words, 'blatant mendacity may be the basis of an approach to (the judges)', like the journalists of The Sunday Times, who were subject to real-time interception based on 'unadulterated lies' that they were suspected ATM bombers; and the illegal surveillance over Saki Macozoma. Such misconduct is not unique to South Africa. In the United States, the FBI fabricated an email to carry out surveillance on Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, whom the FBI suspected of having ties to the Russian government. There are probably more cases that have not surfaced due to the 'complete secrecy' surrounding surveillance practices, which the Constitutional Court identifies as a root cause of abuse in surveillance. A public advocate system would help protect South African privacy rights One solution referenced by the court and supported by researchers and civil society is the introduction of a public advocate system, which is designed to bring an adversarial element to the hearing. A security-cleared lawyer would act in the interest of the excluded party (in this case, the individual subject to surveillance). While communication with the excluded parties is prohibited, public advocates typically have access to all information held by the government, including national security information, and they can submit claims, cross-examine evidence or witnesses, and challenge legal arguments. Such a system aligns with the principle confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights that 'measures affecting fundamental human rights must be subject to some form of adversarial proceedings', 'even when national security is at stake'. At least Canada, the UK, Australia, Sweden, the US, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway and Hong Kong have introduced public advocate systems since the 1980s and improved the systems, including in the context of surveillance authorisation. Notably, these countries have either maintained their public advocate programme or expanded their application. The European Court of Human Rights recognised the public advocate system as a method to address ex parte concerns, and human rights bodies have recommended that states consider including a public advocate system in the warrant application process. Governments explicitly confirmed its effectiveness. Public advocates have demonstrated impact on outcomes. Public advocates' arguments have led courts to negate warrant applications. Existing studies based on interviews with public advocates and government agencies confirm a positive trend, with public advocates increasingly successful in raising the standard for government evidence and warrant applications. The system can improve the quality of warrant applications and help reduce the burden on judges. Parliament should consider public advocate system now The Department of Justice disfavours the public advocate system without fully understanding its effectiveness because it is a new concept in South Africa. Its reluctance is evident in its lacklustre conclusion from preliminary research on the global landscape of the system. It only scratched the surface of some literature, failing to consider the latest rules, ignoring positive trends, and saying 'each country has a very different model of a public advocate, and that this role is not necessarily enabled by state surveillance legislation'. Given the emergence of spyware, the department should conduct more in-depth research into implementation models in other countries and carry out a detailed feasibility assessment of introducing the public advocate system within South African law, particularly in sensitive cases involving press freedom or source confidentiality. The department has failed to show an alternative solution. It argues that an automatic review mechanism would remedy the one-sided warrant hearing. Under this mechanism, all warrant decisions would be reviewed by another judge immediately after the original decision was made. However, such a system is simply less effective and incurs greater costs in both time and money compared with the public advocate system. As Professor Jane Duncan, who has written and worked extensively on public oversight of security agencies, has noted the review judge is likely to 'mirror the decisions', as review judges 'will still be making decisions based on the same one-sided secret evidence'. South Africa has the opportunity to implement a meaningful safeguard to be a model regionally and globally Parliament and the State Security Agency have justified concerns about the legislative gap and the resulting damage to state security. But South Africa is uniquely situated as a state that understands the damage a 'skewed notion of national security' can cause when it is 'weaponised and calculated to subvert the dignity of the majority of South Africans'. South Africa should not miss the present opportunity. The world is watching. Many countries, in Africa and beyond, are updating their surveillance laws. As the Constitutional Court stated, 'the right to privacy is singularly important in South Africa's constitutional democracy.' The world is waiting for South Africa to demonstrate its commitment to constitutional democracy — something that is urgently needed in the current global context. DM Hinako Sugiyama is a public interest lawyer licensed in both Japan and New York, USA, specialising in issues related to surveillance, human rights, and democracy. She currently supervises the work of the International Justice Clinic at the University of California, Irvine School of Law.
