AfriForum, Solidarity join legacy foundations in withdrawing from National Dialogue
Image: X/AfriForum
Controversial lobby groups Afriforum and Solidarity have announced they are pulling out of the upcoming National Dialogue, days after key legacy foundations also withdrew from the highly anticipated event.
The first National Convention is set to take place at UNISA's main campus in Pretoria from August 15 to 16, 2025.
Speaking at a media briefing on Tuesday, Afriforum CEO Kallie Kriel said the two lobby groups had decided not to participate in this weekend's national dialogue.
'The reason for that is simple. The current process has been captured by the ANC as well as President Ramaphosa,' he said.
Kriel claimed Ramaphosa had turned the national dialogue into an ANC monologue.
'They want to dictate the agenda and they expect us to just listen. The fact is, we must remember the crisis in the country, where it comes from. It's because of many years of ANC mismanagement, corruption, as well as failed policies.'
'So why on earth would we want to trust the reason for a crisis to drive the agenda and prescribe the solution? This dialogue should be in the hands of civil society.'
'We will continue to push for that, but while we're pushing, we must continue our discussions on a grassroots level with various communities. Every forum has done so for many years.'
'That is why we have agreements with various communities: the Barolong, Busuleka, Namabele and Bakgatla communities. These are not just talkshops - or well, it's not talk shops - but these discussions are converted into agreements and practical projects.'
'That is where we see the future with real dialogue and cooperation. I see a great future, not because of President Ramaphosa and the ANC-led government, but despite them,' Kriel said.
Meanwhile, Dr Dirk Hermann, chief executive of Solidarity, also announced his organisation was pulling out of the dialogue.
'Dear President Ramaphosa. The people of South Africa want to talk, but do not want to talk to you. You have lost the trust of South Africans,' he said.
Hermann claimed citizens saw the national dialogue in its current format for what it is: a state-sponsored ANC revival project.
'With all due respect, we are not interested in the revival of the ANC. People of South Africa have begun a great dialogue, but it is different from the so-called national dialogue. People are talking in their workplaces, around the braai, at sporting events and in churches about a longing for a different dispensation,' he said.
'They do not want to have nice talks with an ANC-led government; they want them gone. The great dialogue already began at the ballot box when the ANC was punished by 40%. This was the first vote of the people.'
'After the people's voices were heard at the ballot box, more voices were raised that the community should talk to each other. This was initiated, among others, by some of the foundations.'
Hermann said the idea of a national dialogue was born from an imploding ANC, which is leading the Government of National Unity (GNU).
'The ANC was alarmed by this and hijacked the spontaneous community dialogue. The national dialogue became a state dialogue. It was born in the Union Buildings by you, as president, wearing an ANC robe. The moment that happened, the national dialogue was stillborn.'
'The need for dialogue came from the community. It is precisely because of a deep rift with the government that people want to talk about a different kind of dispensation.'
He said the government feels threatened by this type of dialogue and has therefore decided to hijack it.
'The government does not want to engage in open dialogue, but rather wants to determine the agenda and outcome of the dialogue in favour of the ANC. They are, with very good reason, afraid of a dialogue that will expose them even further.'
'The voices of people who want to speak cannot be silenced by trying to control them. Solidarity and the larger Solidarity Movement like to talk. We have a history of talking and will continue to talk.'
'However, we believe even more in doing. We don't just talk, we build alternatives. Take a look at what we have already built.'
Hermann said they are going to talk to unions, foundations, cultural communities and other civic organisations.
'We are going to talk about the larger community's frustration with the ANC-led government. We are going to talk about how things should look different and what needs to be done.'
He said they will participate in community dialogue but not state dialogue.
'Mr President, leave our community alone. We want to talk about South Africa beyond the current ANC. We are so looking forward to it. We are going to talk, and our talks will not be hijacked,' Hermann added.
The National Dialogue, however, has been rocked by the withdrawal of several prominent organisations, including the Steve Biko Foundation, Thabo Mbeki Foundation, Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation, Desmond and Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, WDB Foundation, Oliver and Adelaide Tambo Foundation, and the Strategic Dialogue Group.
In a joint statement issued on Friday, the group said the decision was made with 'deep regret' but was necessary to protect the process's credibility and integrity.
They accused the organisers of shifting the initiative away from its citizen-led origins towards government control.
'What began as a citizen-led initiative has unfortunately in practice shifted towards government control,' the statement read.
Meanwhile, President Cyril Ramaphosa said the upcoming National Dialogue must serve as a platform for 'women to raise their voices'.
With the first National Convention taking place during Women's Month, he called on all sectors of society to come together to ensure the full participation of all women in the National Dialogue.
'This would be the most fitting and powerful tribute to the legacy of the pioneers of 1956,' he said in his weekly newsletter on Monday.
Thousands of community dialogues across the country are expected to form part of the National Dialogue process, and 60% of the costs for the project will be funded by the government.
This was said on Monday by National Convention organising committee spokesperson Reverend Zwoitwaho Nevhutalu, who clarified that the widely discussed R700 million budget for the national dialogue was not a government allocation but a draft figure prepared by the preparatory task team.
The clarification comes after the estimated R700 million price tag ignited criticism from trade unions, political parties, academics, and sectors of civil society - especially in a context of austerity measures, service delivery failures, and deepening inequality.
Speaking at a media briefing at UNISA on Monday about the state of readiness to host the first convention, Nevhutalu said, 'The budget that people were talking about, the R700 million and so on, was a budget prepared by the preparatory task team. It's not a government budget.'
He added that the conceptual funding framework envisages 60% of costs being covered by the government through the fiscus, while the remaining 40% would come from donors in cash and in kind.
Contributions would be sought from businesses, the private sector and civil society, with organisations such as churches and municipalities providing infrastructure and venues.
'Civil society has already done a lot,' he said.
Nevhutalu further stressed that the initiative is a 'people's project' and not solely a government undertaking.
He said, therefore, that most of the proposed funding would go towards community dialogues, which are planned to take place in every ward across the country.
'It is expected that we're going to have three dialogues per ward for the duration. I think it comes to like 13,600 dialogues,' he said.
These sessions will focus on grassroots discussions about the future vision of South Africa.
He added that the budget remains provisional, with the Treasury still in discussions over the government's contribution.
Entities will also be approached and mobilised by the steering committee and eminent persons groups to secure additional support, he said.
'This is a people's project. It's not something that is really a government project,' Nevhutalu said.
National Convention organising committee chairperson Boichoko Ditlhake said 775 individuals have been invited from over 30 sectors and more than 200 organisations.
'As of Monday, 557 people from 28 sectors had confirmed attendance,' he said.
[email protected]
IOL Politics
Hashtags
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
Zuma and MK party file urgent court bid to challenge Ramaphosa's Mchunu decision
The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. Former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party have not given up the fight and have lodged an urgent application against President Cyril Ramaphosa in the High Court in Pretoria. The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. What Zuma wants In the notice of motion, Zuma and his party want the high court to declare Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave. They also want the appointment of Wits law Professor Feroz Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry to be declared invalid, null and void and unconstitutional and set aside. ConCourt ruling The ConCourt on 31 July 2025 ruled that the application does not engage the court's jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in its matter against Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa's lawyer Kate Hofmeyr argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited. 'This matter does not fall within this court's exclusive jurisdiction. Very few matters do, and this is not one of them. 'Any allegation that the power was exercised unlawfully falls under our constitutional scheme to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to consider first. Additionally, there is no pressing need for this court, on 10 days' notice, to decide the issues in this matter as a court of first and last instance,' Hofmeyr said. This basically means that Zuma and the MK party had to approach the high court first, which they have now done. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS] The court ruling was handed down two hours after it hosted a special ceremonial sitting for retiring Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, whom Ramaphosa appointed to chair a commission to probe explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) top cop Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanzi of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system. Constitutional matter In his founding affidavit to the high court, Zuma said he is bringing the application in his personal capacity, but because the application is urgent and in the 'interest of justice' he is also deposing the papers on behalf of the MK party. 'The twin purposes of this application are to re-assert the merits of the application which were left unadjudicated by the Constitutional Court on account of its findings on exclusive jurisdiction and direct access; and to raise new grounds of illegality and irrationality based on events which arose post the 30 July 2025 hearing in the Constitutional Court,' Zuma argues. Zuma said that the present application is indisputably a constitutional matter. Section 169(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that the High Court of South Africa may decide any constitutional matter except a matter that the Constitutional Court has agreed to hear by way of direct access or is assigned by legislation to another court of a status similar to the High Court. 'This is such a matter because the Constitutional Court, rightly or in my view wrongly, declined to grant direct access. That decision must be respected as a fact until or unless it is set aside,' Zuma said. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party accuse ConCourt of ignoring 'most serious' violations by Ramaphosa Urgency In his papers, Zuma argues that in his Constitutional Court application, Ramaphosa did not contest the urgency, exclusive jurisdiction, and/or direct access. 'The president sought and was allowed to opportunistically hide behind those technicalities to escape much-needed judicial accountability for the unjustifiable multiple breaches of the rule of law. There are no more hiding places. 'The serious and unprecedented revelations of alleged criminality made by Lieutenant-General Mkhwanazi, as another highly qualified whistleblower, in the tradition of former Intelligence Chief Arthur Fraser, can no longer be ignored or swept under the carpet at the request of the president,' Zuma argued. Zuma explains that the urgency of the application is 'clearly not self-created, and it can never be reasonably asserted that relief may be obtained in due course.' 'The impugned commission has already commenced and continues to operate at huge cost to the taxpayer. In the (unlikely) event of its delivering a final report in six months' time, the matter would still not have been heard in due course.' Cachalia Zuma also argues that Cachalia has since assumed office and will be 'making decisions which affect the security of the people of South Africa' while Mchunu 'who has been illegally placed on leave of absence by the president continues to earn a salary and enjoy other expensive privileges such as bodyguards, drivers, free ministerial accommodation, air travel domestic workers and the like.' 'It is trite that the matter involves very serious and unprecedented allegations of executive and judicial capture which, if true, constitute a threat to the very democracy prevailing in South Africa. 'It is impossible to imagine a greater catastrophe than that which would transpire if the allegations are true and the matter is not heard as one of the utmost urgency. In relation to the question of urgency, the merits must be regarded as true and proven,' Zuma argues. Senzo Mchunu Zuma also argues that there is 'no express legal provision which empowers Ramaphosa to place a minister on leave of absence. 'The respondents can therefore only rely on an implied power which is said to flow from the power to dismiss. 'It will be argued that the decision does not pass the reasonable necessity test because the power to dismiss in section 91(2) must not be confused with the power to dismiss an employee,' he said. 'Financial benefit' Zuma said the appointment of Cachalia is 'totally incoherent' and false explanations given by Ramaphosa in 'respect of this decision owe to the fact that it is rooted in improper motives and bad faith'. 'Its purpose if to grant undue financial benefits to Minister Mchunu at the expense of the taxpayer and to shield him from accountability and well-deserved dismissal or removal from the Cabinet. 'In explaining this appointment, the president has performed both somersaults and backflips in a series of incompatible volte face manoeuvres, all pointing to sheer irrationality,' Zuma argued. In his papers, Zuma argued that following the swearing in of the acting police minister, both Ramaphosa and Cachalia gave media interviews, with differing accounts of his official title and status. Questions to Ramaphosa Zuma's attorneys sent a letter to Ramaphosa on 4 August 2025, posing 15 unanswered questions regarding his actions and justifications. Zuma said Ramaphosa's response was 'inadequate'. 'Given the public importance of the issues and the imminence of the 1 August date for the assumption of office by Professor Cachalia, the matter cries out for direct access.' ALSO READ: Zuma demands Ramaphosa resign by Friday, or else… Madlanga Commission Zuma also argues that there is no legal provision which is capable of endowing the president with the power to confer upon the Madlanga Commission the powers which are reserved to the Judicial Service and/or Magistrates' Commissions, to investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of members of the judiciary. 'There are specific and well-accepted policy reasons why such powers are exclusively reserved for the bodies referred to above. These include the preservation of the independence, dignity and effectiveness of the judiciary.' The matter is expected to heard on 26 August 2025. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
eNCA
2 hours ago
- eNCA
ActionSA deploys two seniors to observe and monitor National Dialogue
CAPE TOWN - Unresolved questions raised by key stakeholders and the broader public have led to growing concerns surrounding the National Dialogue convention. This had led to the withdrawal of several NGOs, interest groups and political parties that were meant to be participating. Central to the impasse is the budget allocation for the convention. ActionSA Parliamentary Leader Athol Trollip had a discussion with eNCA's Gareth Edwards and shared his party's standpoint on the upcoming National Dialogue
eNCA
2 hours ago
- eNCA
AfriForum accuses ANC of National Dialogue capture
JOHANNESBURG - AfriForum has withdrawn from the National Dialogue. It says the ANC has taken control of the process, capturing it from its intended citizen-led nature. READ: Concerns as several legacy foundations withdraw from National Convention The National Convention is scheduled for this weekend, but several foundations, political parties and other organisations have denounced it.
