Government to utilise own facilities for National Dialogue to cut costs
The National Dialogues will be spread out over nine months, with organisers criss-crossing the country, engaging South Africans.
The entire process was initially estimated to cost more than R700 million, leading to critics calling it an expensive talkshop.
READ: Ramaphosa emphasises National Dialogue as a platform for tough questions
Speaking at the National Dialogue Convention in Pretoria on Friday, President Cyril Ramaphosa said he could not allow for the event to cost this much.
'The Unisa VC, said to cut off all those costs, said we will give you this beautiful venue for free, and now we got it for free, and that's exactly what we will seek to do. We will be going around the country, we will desist from hiring expensive halls and hotels and so on, we will want to hold the various dialogues in schools, churches but not in beer halls. We will hold them under the tree and all that because the people of SA do not want us to be spending too much money on the conversations we are going to have.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
2 hours ago
- eNCA
South African Human Rights Commission investigating McKenzie
JOHANNESBURG - The South African Human Rights Commission is investigating past social media posts by Sports, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie. The posts, dated between 2011 and 2017, resurfaced last week, prompting complaints from political parties and individuals. The Commission says the remarks appear to violate the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. It has written to the minister, and it may take the matter to the Equality Court. The SAHRC says freedom of expression does not protect hate speech, and calls on all South Africans to respect the values of the Constitution.
The Citizen
2 hours ago
- The Citizen
Lease probe marches on despite Public Works senior official's resignation
The top-ranking official faced the possibility of suspension before she voluntarily vacated her office. A senior official in the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure has stepped down while under scrutiny for alleged irregularities involving leases and maintenance contracts. Nyeleti Mthetwa, formerly the deputy director-general (DDG) in charge of real estate management services, recently handed in her resignation after being asked to address several accusations. She also faced the possibility of suspension. The division oversees the government's vast property portfolio, which includes leasing office space for government departments – transactions valued in the billions of rands. Public Works official quits, Macpherson vows to pursue lease probe The real estate management services branch has long been plagued by claims of wrongdoing, according to Public Works Minister Dean Macpherson. Hence, the minister called on the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) last year to push for a presidential proclamation authorising investigations into suspected mismanagement, questionable payments to private landlords under lease contracts, and irregular expenses related to emergency maintenance work on facilities. 'The DDG, alongside the chief director, was sent multiple letters, and the chief director responded to all of them; and therefore, a decision was made not to place them on suspension. 'However, the DDG responded to all except the last one and instead chose to resign,' Macpherson said in a statement on Friday. ALSO READ: Zikalala slams 'spurious' allegations about R45m IDT lease deal, heads to Public Protector The minister emphasised that the probes will continue despite the resignation, stressing the department's commitment to accountability in adherence to all legal and regulatory requirements. He also noted that the investigations into the branch are part of a broader effort since he took office to restore integrity within the department and pursue those found guilty of misconduct. 'The director-general, Mr Sifiso Mdakane, and I are committed to upholding good governance, protecting public resources, and ensuring our property portfolio is used for the benefit of all South Africans. 'This is how we will turn South Africa into a construction site, grow the economy, and create jobs,' Macpherson added. IDT scandal This development comes just a week after the head of the Independent Development Trust (IDT), which falls under the Department of Public Works, became embroiled in a bribery scandal. IDT chief executive officer (CEO) Tebogo Malaka was allegedly filmed offering a journalist R60 000 in cash, reportedly in a bid to halt reporting on an investigation into one of the entity's contracts and a luxury property she owns in Waterfall, Gauteng. The incident happened only days after Malaka was suspended, following findings from a PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) investigation that uncovered irregularities tied to the IDT's R836 million oxygen plant project. The initiative was intended to deliver oxygen systems to 60 public hospitals nationwide. According to the PwC report, both Malaka and the trust's general manager of supply chain management, Molebedi Sisi, played central roles in signing off on the contracts at the heart of the scandal. Disciplinary action was recommended against the senior officials involved. NOW READ: Fake licence and ballooned budget: PwC report places IDT seniors at centre of R800m oxygen tender
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
The National Dialogue is going nowhere fast, and that's a great pity
The National Dialogue is dead, long live a national dialogue, or something to that effect… where or how to start such a dialogue, the lower-case one, is the next big task. We know that we have to talk, but we can't seem to agree on what to talk about, or whom to include in such talks. It's all rather bewildering. As mentioned previously, opposition to President Cyril Ramaphosa's initiative is, 'in one sense, a good thing', because it meant that people were engaging with the proposal, and that 'a measure of distrust of the government is always necessary'. In among it all lies the way forward, or rather 'a way forward'. For what it's worth, I remain convinced that the Diagnostic Overview of the National Development Plan is a good place to start, with the necessary updates, inclusions and adaptations. Opposition to Ramaphosa's National Dialogue has moved between positions of outright contempt, to self-dramatisation, bad faith and inauthenticity. Then again, it really was a stretch to imagine the Democratic Alliance, MK party and the EFF supporting anything put forward by Ramaphosa; they were, as they usually are, 'a little too precise, a little too rapid' in their response to the National Dialogue. My colleague Stephen Grootes used the term performative, which is a useful way of describing their responses. These political groups are, at least, consistent and have always presented themselves as indispensable for South Africa's future. Taking them at their word, they are the indispensables. The latest withdrawals will probably mean that the National Dialogue, in its current conception, will not start. The latest group of refuseniks who were meant to participate in preparations toward the National Dialogue have accused the president's initiative of rushing, of 'cutting corners' and of 'centralising power'. The latter is difficult to fathom because it seems to me that opening up a discussion on the country's future is actually about decentralising influence and power and about bringing together political and civil society. Never mind. Leading the most recent resistance, and what may well torpedo the president's initiative, are the Thabo Mbeki Foundation and the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation, the Steve Biko Foundation, the Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation, the FW de Klerk Foundation, the Oliver and Adelaide Tambo Foundation, and the Strategic Dialogue Group. At first glance, the new resistance projects an image of loyal criticism in the sense that they believe, for sure, that something ought to be done, and that they would like to be part of that something if the necessary changes and improvements are made. Closer scrutiny suggests that there may be a loss of the spirit of compromise with which Mbeki and the late former president FW de Klerk (and Ramaphosa, in particular) were familiar. It's all rather confusing. It's a bit like trying to figure out how something or someone can be all over the place at the same time. We have to wait and see what emerges. What I want to discuss is the idea of compromise, and of bringing the opposition into the room. The Mbeki-De Klerk non-compromise A long time ago, during the latter stages of the Codesa negotiations, I had a chat with former president De Klerk about compromise in politics and about its gains and losses. Regardless of what I (many of us) thought at the time, De Klerk believed he had made the greatest compromises, first, with his 'own people' about ending legal apartheid, and then with the ANC in the final months of the negotiations process. The conversation ended on a sobering note. 'You don't have to tell me about making compromises,' De Klerk said. And so I was surprised that the foundations of former presidents Mbeki and De Klerk were among the refuseniks. They would at least understand that Ramaphosa's initiative was somewhat of an acknowledgement that the ANC-led state had lost the power and will to steer South Africa, and that it sought to forge stronger alliances with civil society. All the more surprising was that the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation withdrew. They would represent civil society with a little less political baggage than the Mbeki and De Klerk foundations. Then again, the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation probably endorsed the (political) compromises that created the current Government of National Unity. The objective of that compromise, it seemed to me, was by and large to maintain the political and economic status quo that took shape after 1994. To the extent, then, that the envisaged National Dialogue included the main parties that gave us concepts like ' sufficient consensus ' in the early 1990s, one may be forgiven for believing that the Mbeki and De Klerk foundations would, at least, enter into preliminary discussions on the National Dialogue. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas Let's try to think harder about negotiations, bargaining and more honest discussions among political and social society. Bringing together political society and social society — all interested parties — into a room to discuss a way forward does not always guarantee optimal outcomes. As the tired idiom has it: turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Let's try a more sophisticated example, grounded in reality (turkeys don't actually vote, nè). Imagine a village, somewhere in Central America, that is plagued by crime, gender-based violence and drug abuse. A leader of the village suggests a 'dialogue' about crime, gender-based violence and drug abuse, and invites everyone into a hall to discuss what is wrong and what ought to be done about it. One suggestion is that the local municipality installs high-mast lighting as a way to curb criminal activities at night. Now, among the invited, for the sake of democracy, representation and inclusivity, are criminals who have an interest in darkness. Criminals thrive on operating in the dark. The initiative to install high-mass lighting fails because there is no consensus. The criminal elements on the guest list of civil society vote against high-mast lighting. It is at this point that the local leaders can simply go ahead and authorise installation of the high-mass lighting by some decree or authoritarianism, or on the basis of 'sufficient consensus', or by asking the criminals to vote against their interests. What will it be? What should it be? I just don't know. I return to the befuddlement of a political superposition — trying to figure out how something or someone can be all over the place at the same time. Nobody knows what will happen next. I don't know what will happen next. But because I don't know what will happen next, does not mean everyone else does not know what will happen next. Maybe somebody does know what will happen next. I think I mangled a line from the film The Milagro Beanfield War, but it works, kinda. For now, we remain in stasis — what has become South Africa's original position. DM
