President, you did what you had to do
But the question now is: can this effort gain traction in time?
South Africans are not short on patience. We waited through the painstaking revelations of the Zondo Commission. We watched damning evidence pile up, expecting swift justice and systemic reform. Yet years later, we still ask: where are the arrests? Where is the action? Where is the transformation?
The announcement, though necessary, is not enough. Not anymore.
The timelines between political will and actual change in this country have become alarmingly wide. For every new committee or task force, there's a growing list of unfinished business recommendations unimplemented, whistleblowers unprotected, and citizens left in the dark. While your intentions may be genuine, Mr President, history has taught us to be cautious with our optimism.
The country is weary. Corruption has not only stolen billions it has also stolen hope. It has left our institutions fragile and our faith in leadership fractured. So, yes, you've made the right move. But now, every delay, every excuse, every silence will be a choice. A choice to let rot continue, to let impunity flourish, and to watch yet another reform effort lose steam.
Real leadership requires more than commissions and declarations. It requires follow-through, transparency, and the courage to upset the political apple cart even if it means confronting those within your own house.
We are running out of time. If we want to rebuild trust in our institutions, we need bold execution, not bureaucratic theatre. We need urgency, not ambiguity. And above all, we need to know that when leaders speak, they mean business, not just business as usual.
The window to act is closing. And this time, the country is watching with clear eyes and tired hearts.
I had written an article with the hope that the Zondo Commission recommendations would be implemented, and for a while, we saw no follow-through. That hope, shared by millions of South Africans, was slowly replaced by frustration. The gap between revelation and justice widened. It became clear that exposing the truth was only the beginning and that the real test would be in the making.
In closing, Mr President, let us use this period to act.
Nyaniso Qwesha
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Trust in the judiciary: South Africa's crisis of confidence
President Cyril Ramaphosa appointed Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga to chair the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into allegations of corruption in the criminal justice system. Ramaphosa and the ANC have demonstrated that an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution is politically meaningless, says the writer. Image: Independent Media Archives Prof. Sipho Seepe South Africans live in hope. For seven nerve-wracking days, they waited patiently for President Cyril Ramaphosa to address them on one of the most pressing crises the country has faced since 1994. A week earlier, Lt. Gen. Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi had placed the entire criminal justice system on trial. Mkhwanazi implicated the Minister of Police, Senzo Mchunu, top brass, correctional services, senior politicians, and members of the judiciary in an intricate web of crime syndicates and drug cartels. The allegations put the country on the knife-edge. This is the stuff that collapses governments. When Ramaphosa finally faced the nation, the address was characteristically and predictably underwhelming. All opposition parties took potshots at Ramaphosa. Those who were disappointed in Ramaphosa's utterances have themselves to blame. First, Ramaphosa is not a man of courage. He has no backbone. Placed in a prickly situation, his instinct is to choose ANC's interests over those of the country. Second, Ramaphosa and the ANC have demonstrated that an oath to uphold and protect the constitution is politically meaningless. Third, Ramaphosa does not come with clean hands. The Phala Phala farmgate scandal must have weighed heavily on his mind. The independent parliamentary panel, comprising luminaries in law, found Ramaphosa to be possibly guilty of serious misconduct of violating section 96(2)(b) by acting in a way that is inconsistent with his office. Ramaphosa was also found to have violated section 96(2)(b) by exposing himself to a situation involving a conflict between his official responsibilities and his private business. The panel concluded that. 'Viewed as a whole, the information presented to the Panel, prima facie, establishes that (1) There was a deliberate intention not to investigate the commission of the crimes committed at Phala Phala openly.' The damning findings by the former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo-led panel have not triggered the usual knee-jerk reaction that we have come to expect from the self-appointed custodians of constitutionalism. If anything, they have been conspicuously silent and absent. Confronted by the ever-lingering prospect of possible impeachment of Ramaphosa over the farmgate scandal, the ANC did what it does best. It closed ranks and squashed parliament's attempt to establish a Multi-Party Committee to investigate its leader. An annoyed Thabo Mbeki wrote. 'Are we [the ANC] saying that we suspect or know that he (Ramaphosa) has done something impeachable and therefore decided that we must protect our president at all costs by ensuring that no Multi-Party Committee is formed?...... We acted as we did [as if] there was something to hide'. There is no way that Ramaphosa was going to throw Mchunu, one of his supporters, under the bus without facing serious political repercussions. The establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry was the only safe route open to Ramaphosa. It enables Ramaphosa to postpone addressing a tricky political question of dispensing with Mchunu's services. Be that as it may, the inquiry should not prevent the police from conducting criminal investigations against those implicated in the alleged commission of crimes. Neither does the commission absolve parliament of its oversight responsibility. 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 Next Stay Close ✕ With a president burdened by allegations of possible criminality, it would be foolhardy to expect that the recommendations of the Madlanga Judicial Commission of Inquiry will be taken seriously. That the country can be held in suspense by a President who has proved to be a constitutional delinquent reflects the pervasive sense of lack of accountability, paralysis, and resignation that grips the nation. South Africans deserve Ramaphosa. No self-respecting country would allow this. South Africans have expressed a sense of inquiry-fatigue. They have witnessed far too many commissions without any of them leading to discernible positive effects. Some commissions were demonstrably weaponised to target certain individuals disliked by the establishment. Ordinarily, had it not been for the fact that Mkhwanazi implicated judges in the commission of corrupt activities, the establishment of a judicial commission would be unquestionable. Matters become complex if one considers the fact that the very judiciary had decided that South Africans cannot be entrusted with information relating to who funded President Ramaphosa's 2017 ANC presidential candidacy. Mkhwanazi's allegations lend credence to the speculations that the reason the CR17 files are sealed is that they may implicate some members of the judiciary or their family members. Ramaphosa is lucky. Each time he asks the courts to seal matters that relate to him, the courts oblige. This raises several questions. What happened to transparency being the lifeblood of democracy? If Ramaphosa is innocent as he pretends, why rush to the courts for cover? Who are the funders and beneficiaries of the CR17 funds? The tendency to obfuscate issues whenever Ramaphosa is involved played itself out at the Constitutional Court. Instead of zeroing in on the bigger picture, the country's esteemed jurists inordinately debated whether the parliamentary panel had established a prima facie or sufficient evidence. Their colleague, Justice Owen Rogers, would have none of it. He contended. 'A person loses 8.7 million Rand, they would want to know who the investigating officer is, and has it been reported to the police. Is there a case pending? It is a common cause that there wasn't… There was a deliberate decision because the president wanted to keep secret the source of the money; that's the background to where the panel was coming from.' This invariably raises the perennial question: Who judges the judges? The former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng answered that question when he contended that 'one of the things we needed to do as judges is to give reasons for our decisions that an ordinary man can understand. You must be worried when you read a judgment, and you are struggling to make sense of it.... We ought to know that partly, we account to the public through our judgments. Now, if you write in such a way that the public can't even understand what you are doing, what kind of accountability is that? We don't write for lawyers. We don't account to lawyers only; we account to every South African citizen.' The question becomes pertinent given society's growing mistrust of the judiciary. According to the 2018 Afrobarometer survey, 32% of South Africans suspect that judges are involved in corruption. In 2002, the level of mistrust was 15%. Responding to the 2021 Afrobarometer report on the society's loss of confidence in the judiciary, Chief Justice Mandisa Maya argued that 'the judiciary itself needs to do an introspection and check if we are to blame for this change of attitude towards the institution.' The chair of a commission of inquiry must be beyond reproach for the commission to enjoy legitimacy and credibility. For now, we can only speculate. And the picture is not rosy. * Professor Sipho P. Seepe is an Higher Education & Strategy Consultant. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
14 hours ago
- IOL News
Point of view: why the Fair Pay Bill could transform recruitment practices in South Africa
The Fair Pay Bill aims to revolutionise recruitment in South Africa by prohibiting employers from asking for salary history, promoting transparency and equity in pay practices. This article explores the implications of the Bill for job seekers and employers alike. Have you ever been asked to submit your payslip by a prospective employer, before you've even sat down for the interview? For many South Africans, it's a routine (and often frustrating) part of the job search. But that could soon change. The recently tabled Fair Pay Bill aims to put an end to this outdated practice and usher in a more equitable era of recruitment. If passed, it would prohibit employers from requesting your current or previous salary history and instead require them to be upfront about what they're willing to pay. In short, transparency becomes the rule, not the exception. According to Norma Mazibuko, partner, and Amandla Makhongwana, senior associate at Bowmans South Africa: 'This is a game-changer for both employers and job seekers and, if passed, is set to reshape recruitment, pay practices, and workplace culture across the country.' That statement isn't just hopeful, it's a challenge to long-standing hiring norms. Mazibuko and Makhongwana say South Africa isn't alone in rethinking how pay is structured. The European Union's Pay Transparency Directive is set for roll-out by June 2026, while several US states have already banned questions about salary history. The trend is clear: the world is moving towards fairer pay, and we'd be wise not to be left behind. What's powerful about the Fair Pay Bill is its emphasis on the root causes of inequality. Historically, linking new salaries to previous ones has trapped many, especially women, the youth, and people from marginalised communities, in a cycle of underpayment. Start low, stay low. If each new offer is based on an already disadvantaged benchmark, how do you ever break the cycle? And yet, in many HR departments across the country, this remains standard practice. Some would argue that knowing a candidate's pay history helps assess market value or avoid overspending. Yet this line of thinking contradicts the spirit of the Employment Equity Act, 1998 (EEA), and does little to close pay gaps. As Mazibuko and Makhongwana point out, the Bill 'is in line with this growing movement towards increased pay transparency.' It also reframes the conversation entirely: instead of asking what you used to earn, employers are being nudged to ask, what is this role worth, and what can this person bring to it? And merit-based pay? It thrives under this model because decisions are no longer anchored to arbitrary past figures but built around skills, potential, and responsibility. Key Highlights of the Bill: No more salary history questions: Employers may only consider past pay if a formal offer has already been made and the candidate initiates the disclosure. Pay ranges must be advertised: Vague terms like 'market-related' will no longer cut it. Candidates will know upfront what the job is worth. Transparent communication: Employees will be able to discuss pay openly, breaking down taboos and secrecy. Documented pay structures: Employers will need clear records of salary bands and justifications for pay decisions. It's not just about compliance. It's about modernising how we talk about pay and fairness. As employment law experts at Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr (CDH) notes, the EEA 'aims to eliminate unfair discrimination and implement policies that correct historical disadvantages experienced by black people, women, and people with disabilities.' Yes, some employers may face new challenges: assessing value in specialised sectors without historic anchors, or losing the upper hand in salary negotiations. But perhaps it's time we stopped treating equity as a burden and started seeing it as an investment. Another promising ripple effect of the Bill is how it subtly intersects with broader conversations about the difference between minimum wage and a living wage. Is a legally defined minimum enough to cover housing, food, transport, and school fees? Or should we reframe wage structures entirely to reflect dignity and sustainability? The Fair Pay Bill invites employers and policymakers to ask these deeper questions. If enacted, this Bill will be more than legislative housekeeping. It will challenge the status quo, level the playing field, and build stronger trust between employers and the workforce. And in a country still working toward economic justice, that shift is not only overdue, it's necessary. * Maleke is the editor of Personal Finance. PERSONAL FINANCE
The Citizen
18 hours ago
- The Citizen
Active citizens: Phakeng speaks out on threats to SA's democracy
Phakeng says all South Africans must embody the spirit of service and justice South Africans should take confront the many problems the country faces before it is too late, says former UCT vice-chancellor professor Mamokgethi Phakeng. Phakeng was speaking at Hope Restoration Ministries in Kempton Park on Friday. 'We have begun to take the unacceptable as a given, we drive around potholes as if they are normal parts of the road,' she said. 'People read about children falling into pit latrines or having to cross dams to go to school in the Eastern Cape and they just say 'shame' and move on with their day. That numbness is precisely how democracies die.' Phakeng said it is rare for democracies to die through dictatorships or military coups. 'Democracies die more effectively through apathy. They die when good people stop paying attention, they die when good people stop believing in their power to bring change. 'When good people look away, when good people trust bad people with responsibilities, that is how democracies die,' she said. How to honour Madiba Phakeng said each citizen should stand up for what is right in honour of Nelson Mandela. 'Madiba himself taught us to face reality head on no matter how uncomfortable it is. So, we must confront these ugly truths if we ever hope to change them,' she said. It is in your hands She said it is now time for South Africans to take charge of their destinies and stop depending on political figures to save the country. 'I know that given our challenges it is very easy to think that we have to wait for someone to save us. 'We are waiting for a bigger hero, a more ethical politician a new government, a new policy, a billionaire philanthropist, the UN, or a miracle from somewhere. 'But fellow brethren we must be honest there is no one who is coming to save us.' The solution is active citizenry Phakeng said the solution to South Africa's problems is in active citizenry. 'I submit to you that the answer is active citizenship, active citizenship means that ordinary people not only politicians or officials but all of us come forward and take responsibility for the wellbeing of our communities and our country. 'It means not waiting for someone else to save us but rolling up our sleeves and getting involved.' ALSO READ: Mandela Day: Food and community upliftments How to become an active citizen Phakeng said active citizenship means each citizen must lead by example. 'If all we do is criticise without lifting a finger to help, then that is not active citizenship, that is commentary and it does not change anything. 'Active citizenship does not mean taking the law into our hands in a distractive way. 'Active citizenship is not anarchy, it is not looting or vandalising community resources out of anger or frustration.' Phakeng said another way of being an active citizen is to report corruption to the authorities. Her remarks come at a time when the country prepares for a national dialogue next month. This dialogue will provide South Africans with an opportunity to express their frustrations with the challenges in the country and come up with solutions. NOW READ: The real national dialogue has begun
