Former DA MP Gouws apologises for racist remarks after settling out-of-court with SAHRC
JOHANNESBURG - Former Democratic Alliance (DA) Member of Parliament (MP) Renaldo Gouws has apologised for his racist remarks after settling out of court with the South African Human Rights Commission in his hate speech case.
Gouws landed in hot water in 2024 after a video he took in 2010 resurfaced.
In the viral footage, Gouws could be seen using racially offensive and harmful language directed at Black South Africans.
He was recalled by the DA from the National Assembly before severing ties with the party.
In the five-page-long apology dated 14 May, Gouws said that he acknowledges now that the language he used in that video was unacceptable, degrading to Black people and harmful to social cohesion.
He also apologised for taking 15 years to take full responsibility for his remarks.
'To all South Africans, especially Black South Africans, and Black people globally, I am sorry. I am sorry for the pain, anger and trauma my words have caused. I am sorry for trying to justify, minimise and sanitise them. I know that this apology does not erase what I said or did, but it is a step, I must take to acknowledge the effect of my actions and begin to account for them. I remain committed to learning, listening, and doing the difficult work of repair.'
Spokesperson for the commission, Wisani Baloyi, said, 'The commission welcomes Mr Gouws's acknowledgement of the impact of his past conduct and reiterates that the right to freedom of expression must be exercised in a manner that respects the dignity and equality of all people.'
The SAHRC said that Gouws still has to attend two public awareness workshops as part of his settlement.
Hashtags
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
The poor will always be last: The mirage of unity and the necessity of disruption
As South Africa once again contemplates a Government of National Unity (GNU), it is tempting to celebrate the idea of political stability, inter-party cooperation, and the so-called 'maturity' of our democracy. But beneath this surface lies a more troubling pattern; one that reveals the persistent exclusion of the poor, the co-optation of transformation discourse, and the retreat of the state from its moral obligation to disrupt patterns of inherited inequality. History has repeatedly shown us that, when elites call for unity, it is often a euphemism for consolidating power and preserving privilege. The original GNU of the post-1994 settlement, for all its symbolism, was a delicate compromise between political liberation and economic continuity. It preserved existing capital structures, deferred radical land reform, and entrenched a neoliberal macroeconomic framework that has since calcified into orthodoxy. It is no coincidence that Black poverty, youth unemployment, and rural underdevelopment remain defining features of our post-apartheid condition. Today, more than 30 million people live below the upper-bound poverty line. Approximately 60% of youth are unemployed, while more than 3.7 million people remain on the housing backlog, waiting for the dignity of a stable roof. Black Africans remain the least likely to own land. As of 2022, only 8.8% of land in private hands was black-owned, and a significant portion of this is not productive or urban land. These figures are not just numbers; they represent a systematic denial of opportunity to the very people who were promised transformation. Instead of material redress, millions of poor South Africans are locked in a downward spiral of dependency on social grants, a system which, while necessary for survival, is neither developmental nor liberatory. Over 18 million people depend on grants, and yet, every year, the promise of employment, industrial inclusion, and quality public services rings hollow. For over a decade, ambitious rhetoric about inclusive growth and social impact has failed to translate into measurable outcomes. The burden of this failure is borne disproportionately by indigenous South Africans, Black people and Africans in particular, who continue to suffer the most in a democratic society that has yet to reckon with the economic architecture of apartheid. The poor are not an unfortunate side-effect of incomplete transformation; they are a structural outcome of a society designed to exclude them. South Africa's political economy remains profoundly racialised, extractive, and elite-driven. The so-called 'black middle class' and a newly-minted billionaire class are often paraded as evidence of progress. Yet they serve largely as buffers, intermediaries between the desperation of the majority and the opulence of the few, without redistributing power in any meaningful sense. The emerging political consensus today, as represented by discussions of a GNU or coalition-based governance, is disturbingly void of any real commitment to economic justice. Instead, it pivots around the technocratic language of fiscal discipline, market confidence, and investor friendliness, language that insulates elite decision-making from democratic accountability. In this context, calls for unity function as a depoliticising mechanism. They silence dissent, dismiss radical alternatives, and pathologise the anger of the poor as destabilising or immature. Authentic transformation is not a product of elite negotiations behind closed doors; it is the outcome of struggle, disruption, and radical reimagination. If we are to honour the constitutional promise of substantive equality, we must reject the cynical notion that consensus is always virtuous. In truth, some interests are irreconcilable. A society cannot simultaneously defend property rights and guarantee land justice. It cannot shield monopolistic capital while claiming to empower informal economies. And it cannot continue to pacify the masses with promises of reform while the instruments of wealth creation remain in the hands of a tiny, racially exclusive elite. So what will it take to change the system? What will it take for Black South Africans, and Africans in particular, to participate fully in the economy and shape its architecture? It begins with reclaiming the narrative. We must stop accepting incrementalism as a virtue. True transformation requires a redistributive economic model that acknowledges historical injustice and deliberately dismantles racialised capital concentration. We must ask: what will it take to accelerate the pace of progress to see Africans leading as the majority in the corporate sector within JSE-listed companies? As of 2023, Black African CEOs led less than 15% of JSE's top 100 companies. This is not a failure of skills; it is a failure of imagination and will. It reflects the enduring gatekeeping of corporate South Africa and the superficial commitments to transformation targets that are never enforced. We must support Black businesses, not through token funding schemes or ceremonial procurement programmes, but through deliberate state-backed incubation, eased regulatory entry, access to markets, and ownership of infrastructure. SMMEs, particularly Black-owned enterprises, hold the key to mass employment, yet they face the highest barriers to financing, compliance, and market access. We must also cultivate a new generation of Black industrialists, farmers, and tech entrepreneurs. This is not about romanticising the idea of 'start-ups' in a vacuum. It is about building the ecosystem for innovation, from broadband and logistics infrastructure to research funding and digital education, so that we are not merely consumers of global technology but producers of indigenous solutions. We must build our own Silicon Valley, a Southern African tech frontier that draws from our realities, not imported templates. Finally, we must confront the painful truth that the current political elite, across party lines, is increasingly indistinguishable from the economic elite. Many of those who today speak the language of the poor have built careers by exploiting their pain. Their allegiance is not to justice, but to power. They wear the language of liberation like a mask while participating in the architecture of continued dispossession. In the end, unity without justice is a betrayal. It is unity for the sake of comfort for billionaires to retain their portfolios, for technocrats to deliver stability, and for political parties to secure positions. But for the poor, it is merely another season of waiting. Another promise postponed. Another betrayal repackaged as progress. Let us not be seduced by elegant formulations of compromise. Let us instead ask: who benefits, who decides, and who pays the price for this so-called unity? Only then can we begin to imagine a politics that does not merely include the poor, but is led by them.
The Citizen
2 hours ago
- The Citizen
uMkhonto weSizwe party's politics of convenience
It is ironic that the MK party has put itself forward as an organisation that fights for issues on principle when its own internal operations are not. When the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town ruled that it makes no sense for an impeached judge to sit on a body that selects judges, it struck a blow for the good guy in South Africa. For far too long a situation has been allowed to develop where the three arms of state, the judiciary, the executive and the legislature, are constantly being put at odds with each other, not for the positive development of the country, but for selfish short-term interests of corrupt individuals and their political parties. But this time, the judiciary said no, common sense must prevail. John Hlophe, who was impeached as a judge, cannot take part in the process of selecting judges. Former president Jacob Zuma's party uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party has vowed to appeal the judgment on principle and not simply to have Hlophe reinstated to the Judicial Service Commission. It is not because it benefits the country that they want this to happen, but simply that it benefits the MK to have a decision of the legislature overturned by the courts. This way, the MK, although just the thirdbiggest party in parliament, can get to 'govern through the courts', something parties of the left have always accused opposition parties to the right of the political divide, like the DA, of doing. It is ironic that the MK has put itself forward as a party that fights for issues on principle when its own internal operations are nowhere close to being based on a set of established principles that can be identified by all and sundry, especially its own members. Its recently fired secretary-general (SG), Floyd Shivambu, found out in the most painful way that where there are no defined principles, anybody can be a victim. He was fired as SG for what he thought was acceptable within the party: identifying with a disgraced fugitive. He saw nothing wrong with that but was fired for it. ALSO READ: Court finds impeached judge John Hlophe unfit to serve on JSC Truth be told though it was not for meeting pastor Shepherd Bushiri that he was fired. The MK has shown a lot of brazenness when it comes to dealing with corruption-tainted prominent individuals that it has become their political home. In the bigger scheme of things, by their own standards, a meeting with Bushiri wouldn't move their moral needle. It was simply that Shivambu had served his purpose in the party. He was parachuted in to demonstrate that the party was not a Zuma one-man-show, an ethnically defined entity based in one province, but that it had appeal to all South Africans. Sadly, the learned Shivambu fell for the ruse and centred himself in a party where he was always an unwanted outsider from day one. Shivambu probably believed that he could mould the MK into the revolutionary force that he always publicly pronounced it to be but, from the beginning, he had to contend with defending unprincipled decisions, such as wanting parliament to accept that an impeached judge was a fit and proper person. In other words, honesty and good moral judgment could be sacrificed at the convenience of the party. That judgment by the court goes to the heart of what is wrong with this country and its politics: an organisation that does not embrace democracy in its own internal operations wants to control the outcomes of a democratically elected legislature and have them overturned. The lesson for Shivambu and the MK is that good, morally-based judgments might appear expendable in achieving short-term goals, but history leans towards what is right for society. NOW READ: MK party removes Floyd Shivambu as SG
The South African
4 hours ago
- The South African
MK Party rejects Helen Zille's 'nonsensical' Joburg mayoral run
UMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party has rejected the Democratic Alliance's possible mayoral candidate in Joburg for the 2026 local government elections Helen Zille. Zille, who was born and bred in Hillbrow, where she worked for the Rand Daily Mail as a journalist during apartheid, has expressed her desire to run for mayor in the City of Johannesburg. She previously served as the leader of the Blue Party from 2007 to 2015 and also served as the Premier of the Western Cape for two five-year terms. In an interview with Radio 702 on Monday, 9 June, Zille said she would consider being mayor because South Africa can't succeed if Johannesburg remains broken as it is the country's economic capital, and it must be fixed. 'South Africa can be on the road to success but we've got to fix it bit by bit and I've always said that's gonna start with local government. That's why we put all our eggs into trying to win somewhere at the local level, demonstrating better governance and building from there, from the bottom up. I've always said that is the way to transform South Africa and that is what we're doing,' she said. Reacting to the news, the MK Party said 'it is nonsensical to consider the possibility of a Capetonian holding mayoral capacity in a city that she is alien to' given the number of qualified men and women who reside in the city of gold. The party said it is vital to remind 'Helen Zille and her cronies' that the current state of disarray found in the City of Johannesburg is courtesy of absent mayor Dada Morero and has resulted in the metropolitan municipality being brought to its knees. 'Dada Morero and the ANC should hang their heads in shame for emboldening a white supremacist and giving her the confidence to believe that she can adequately run this city,' MK Party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela said. Ndhlela also called on Johannesburg residents to 'reject the propaganda that the DA does not see colour. As shown in the City of Cape Town, the DA's priorities tend to shift depending on the race of the residents.' 'There are more than enough black candidates that can adequately fulfill the mayoral mandate in the City of Johannesburg. The MK Party remains steadfast in our belief that the failures of the ANC should not be recycled, nor should they rest on the shoulders of candidates who want to effect real change,' Ndhlela said. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
