EFF calls on National Assembly to denounce persecution claims by Afrikaners granted refugee status in US
CAPE TOWN - The Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) on Tuesday called on the National Assembly to denounce persecution claims by white Afrikaners who arrived in the United States on Monday under the pretence of being refugees.
In a statement to the House on Tuesday afternoon, party whip, Poppy Mailola, said that their citizenship should be revoked.
The United Democratic Movement (UDM) has equally expressed its condemnation of the group, saying it was untrue that they were fleeing from violence in South Africa.
ALSO READ:
• Trump says he won't attend G20 meeting unless SA fixes 'genocide' of white Afrikaners
• Ramaphosa to hold another meeting with Trump over US granting refugee status to group of Afrikaners
The group of 49, which includes families and children, were welcomed at the Dulles Airport in Washington, D.C. on Monday by the deputy secretaries of state and homeland security and encouraged to live the American dream.
US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said the group granted refugee status in the US had shared "harrowing" tales of the violence they had endured in South Africa upon their arrival.
But on Tuesday, some MPs cast doubt on their stories.
Mailola said that by lifting its refugee moratorium to grant entry to the group, the US was trying to delegitimise South Africa's support for the Palestinian cause.
"That this House rejects the notion that there's any persecution of any racial group that would warrant refugee-seeking status in any nation, and that redress within the confines of the Constitution and rule of law, does not constitute discrimination."
The UDM's Nqabayomzi Kwankwa said the group were suffering from apartheid nostalgia.
"They are not refugees. They are fleeing a South Africa that strives for justice and inclusivity. They are running away from a country determined to heal and more equal."
On Tuesday, US media reported that the Episcopal Church in the US would not be helping to resettle the group as requested by Trump's administration, saying the church was committed to racial justice and reconciliation and given its historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa.
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
'Iranian struggle is interwoven with broader geopolitical chessboard'
Iranians chant slogans and wave national flags as they celebrate a ceasefire between Iran and Israel at Enghlab Square in the capital Tehran on June 24, 2025. Image: AFP Reneva Fourie On 13 June, Israel launched an unprovoked attack on Iran. Following a series of missile strikes between the two countries, Trump gave the green light to an unprecedented and illegal bombing campaign targeting Iran's nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan on 22 June. Iran retaliated, striking American military bases in the region. It did not take Trump long to declare a ceasefire effective 24 June, the sustainability of which remains uncertain. The war should never have happened. The fires of war that raged across West Asia demonstrated a deep failure of global leadership, a significant erosion of international law and the questionable morality of leaders like Donald Trump. Despite positioning himself as a champion of peace, Trump has been fully complicit in the unfounded aggression against Iran. Just as the United States supplied significant armaments, intelligence and political support to enable Israel's ongoing, brutal genocide in Gaza, as well as attacks in the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria, and directly attacked Yemen, it enabled the Israeli bombardment of Iran. Furthermore, the US proceeded to bomb sites crucial to Iran's peaceful nuclear energy programme, which were under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), knowing fully that they were not military installations. They were serving Iran's civilian nuclear energy programme – crucial for medicine, industry, and scientific development. The operation, involving B-2 stealth bombers and Tomahawk cruise missiles, was fuelled by hubris, ambition and a blatant desire to reestablish US dominance through the use of force. As with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the general instability caused in West Asia, Trump and his allies act with impunity, invoking humanitarianism while slaughtering civilians, talking democracy while toppling elected governments, and preaching peace while arming allies. Trump's actions in Iran are symptomatic of a broader trend of the West's total disregard for the very legal structures it once built. They were a declaration that international law would remain subject to the whims of imperialist powers. The IAEA, once viewed as a neutral overseer, failed to condemn the US's bombings. The United Nations (UN) is now functionally impotent, paralysed by US veto power. The International Criminal Court has at last gotten the courage to issue an arrest warrant against Netanyahu. Still, the US has, as a result, imposed sanctions against key ICC staff and refused them entry into the US. This is not merely a lapse of diplomacy but the open collapse of the post-World War II international legal order. Iran's resilience is remarkable. It has endured decades of sanctions, sabotage, and assassinations. Its scientists have been murdered, its diplomatic offices targeted, and its infrastructure crippled. Yet Tehran has not built nuclear weapons. Instead, it has worked to achieve energy independence and scientific advancement. 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 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. Next Stay Close ✕ The recent attacks on Iran are not about nuclear non-proliferation; they are about control. The grooming of Reza Pahlavi, son of the former Shah, as a potential replacement for the Islamic Republic's leadership signals the regime change intentions. Ultimately, Iran's defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity triumphed. Undoubtedly, the meeting between the Iranian foreign minister and Putin contributed to Trump's sudden declaration of a ceasefire. Whether Iran will be given a break from the ongoing American-Israeli-European efforts at destabilisation remains to be seen as the terms of the ceasefire agreement are unclear. Vigilance has to be maintained as the Iranian struggle is tightly interwoven with the broader geopolitical chessboard. Iran is not isolated. Its fate is tied to that of Palestine, Lebanon, Syria's former government, Yemen, and even powers like Russia and China. If Iran falls, it will not stop there. It could lead to the eventual destabilisation of Russia through the creation of terrorist corridors from the Middle East into Central Asia and even the provocation of civil war in China via Xinjiang. These plans are openly discussed in think tanks and are likely to be expressed through military policy. The current generation of Western leadership, Trump foremost among them, appear tragically disconnected from the horrors of war. They launch drone strikes from safe rooms, drop bombs from computer consoles, and discuss regime change as if it were a board game. But the human cost is not abstract. It is measured in the bodies of Palestinian children, in the rubble of Iranian cities, and in the famine-stricken streets of Sanaa. Israel's recent battlefield setbacks, which should have prompted a reassessment, have deepened its striving for bloodshed. As the massacre in Palestine continues unabated, the backing by Trump and other Western leaders has rendered even modest diplomacy to bring peace to Palestine and the region at large difficult. As international law burns, the only voices of restraint now emerge from the Global South, countries that remember colonisation, that know the price of conflict, and that understand that today's ally could be tomorrow's victim. The military aggression witnessed in West Asia was never Iran's fight alone. It is the fight of every sovereign nation that believes in dignity, self-determination, and peace. The Global South must break its silence and unite against Western imperialist tyranny. That includes building independent financial systems, revitalising non-aligned movements, and reclaiming the UN.
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
Rwanda, DRC to ink peace deal in US but questions remain
USA - Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo will sign an agreement in Washington on Friday to put an end to a conflict in the eastern DRC that has killed thousands, although broad questions loom on what it will mean. President Donald Trump has trumpeted the diplomacy that led to the deal, and publicly complained that he hasn't received a Nobel Peace Prize. But the agreement has also come under scrutiny for its vagueness including on the economic component, with the Trump administration eager to compete with China and profit from abundant mineral wealth in the long-turbulent east of the vast DRC. The M23 rebel group in late 2021 launched a new offensive that it escalated sharply early this year, seizing broad swathes of territory including the key eastern DRC city of Goma. The Kinshasa government has long alleged that M23, consisting mostly of ethnic Tutsis, receives military support from Rwanda. These claims are backed by Washington. Rwanda has denied directly supporting the rebels but has demanded an end to another armed group, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), which was established by ethnic Hutus linked to the massacres of Tutsis in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. The Rwandan and DRC foreign ministers will sign the agreement in Washington in the presence of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said. The White House also said Trump will meet the foreign ministers in the Oval Office. In a joint statement ahead of the signing, the three countries said the agreement would include "respect for territorial integrity and a prohibition of hostilities" as well as the disarmament of all "non-state armed groups." The agreement was mediated through Qatar, a frequent US partner, and Massad Boulos, a Lebanese-American businessman and father-in-law of Trump's daughter Tiffany tapped by the president as a senior advisor on Africa. The statement also spoke of a "regional economic integration framework" and of a future summit in Washington bringing together Trump, Rwandan President Paul Kagame and DRC President Felix Tshisekedi. - Controversy over economic ties - Denis Mukwege, a gynecologist who shared the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize for his work to end the DRC's epidemic of sexual violence in war, voiced alarm that the agreement was too opaque. He said that the talk of economic cooperation was an unjust reward for Rwanda. The deal "would amount to granting a reward for aggression, legitimizing the plundering of Congolese natural resources, and forcing the victim to alienate their national heritage by sacrificing justice in order to ensure a precarious and fragile peace," he said in a statement. On the eve of the signing, news outlet Africa Intelligence reported that the deal asks Rwanda to withdraw its "defensive measures" and for the DRC to end all association with the FDLR. Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe on X denied the account. "As a matter of facts, the words 'Rwanda Defense Force', 'Rwandan troops' or 'withdrawal' are nowhere to be seen in the document," he said. Congolese Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner, on a visit to Washington in April to jumpstart negotiations on the deal, said that Rwanda should be obliged to withdraw from her country, which has been ravaged by decades of war. Both countries have sought favor with the United States. The DRC - whose enormous mineral reserves include lithium and cobalt, vital in electric vehicles - has pitched an agreement to seek US investment, loosely inspired by the Trump administration's minerals deal with Ukraine. Rwanda has been discussing taking in migrants deported from the United States, a major priority for Trump. Rwanda, one of the most stable countries in Africa, had reached a migration deal with Britain's former Conservative government but the arrangement was killed by the Labour government that took office last year.
The Citizen
2 hours ago
- The Citizen
African cities need fiscal power to survive rapid urbanisation
In terms of urbanisation, what works in London or Washington cannot be transplanted to African cities like Maputo or Lusaka. Africa is urbanising rapidly. According to Africa's Urbanisation Dynamics 2025 – an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report – cities will house 1.4 billion people by 2050 – twice today's number. But this growth is happening in cities that lack the financial power to shape their own futures. Most African cities struggle to raise revenue, borrow money or spend capital at scale. They depend on national governments for funding and long-term planning and are often stuck waiting for budget limited allocations. This has real consequences. Cities struggle to build the roads, housing, power, sanitation or public transport their growing populations need. Climate change makes this worse. Flooding, drought, heatwaves and other climate shocks are hitting cities harder and more often, damaging infrastructure and draining already scarce resources. Cities must now build infrastructure that is not only bigger, but also more resilient and climate-smart. Yet they lack the tools to act, even when the need is urgent. The Urban 20 (U20) brings together mayors from major G20 cities to inform the discussions of national leaders at the G20 Summit, to be held in Johannesburg in November. The recent African Mayors' Assembly in Tshwane – held under the Urban 20 banner and hosted for the first time on African soil – crystallised this challenge into a single question: how do we finance the infrastructure that 1.4 billion urban Africans will need when our cities lack the basic authority to raise and deploy capital? Some cities, such as Johannesburg and Nairobi, have working systems, but they're stretched. Others are building from scratch. Across the continent, the scale of need is vast. ALSO READ: Multi-billion Limpopo mega-project has ground to a halt According to the African Development Bank, Africa needs $130 billion (about R2.2 trillion) to $170 billion annually for infrastructure. However, international lenders typically require three things before they finance city projects: steady revenue streams, a proven ability to repay loans and established institutions. Most African cities don't meet these criteria, creating a Catch-22 situation: they need infrastructure to generate revenue, but need revenue to finance infrastructure. That's why we're pleased that leaders at U20 met to craft an African G20 strategy that addresses burning issues and is built on lived realities, not Western blueprints. At the heart of the discussions was one recurring theme: devolution of fiscal power. In simple terms, this means giving cities more control over their own money. Local governments across Africa are stuck in outdated, centralised funding systems. National governments still control the purse strings. Cities must wait for budget allocations, which limits their ability to plan, borrow or build at the pace their people need. This creates a major bottleneck. Without fiscal authority, cities can't enter financing partnerships, tap capital markets or respond to urgent infrastructure demands. A collective call emerged from the assembly, voiced in a letter signed by dozens of mayors and directed at African finance ministers: Unshackle us. Give cities real fiscal authority – the power to raise, manage and spend revenue, access capital markets and forge financing partnerships. Without this, talk of climate finance and urban resilience is just that – talk. ALSO READ: Deputy Minister warns low-income countries will be hit hardest by geopolitical tensions African cities also need new financial models grounded in reality, not copy-pasted solutions from Europe or North America. What works in London or Washington cannot simply be transplanted to Maputo or Lusaka. Our models must factor in informal development, youth unemployment, weak revenue bases and uneven infrastructure legacies. At Ntiyiso Consulting Group, we have seen what works. Cities that build, digitise revenue collection and improve service delivery can unlock local capital. Municipal bonds, blended finance and public-private partnerships are possible if cities are empowered to plan and account. African cities also need an 'Urban African Union' of sorts – a regional coordination mechanism that allows cities to learn from each other's innovations and speak with a collective voice to international partners. The financing gap is too large for individual cities to bridge alone, but collective action could unlock new opportunities. The U20 Assembly was significant because it articulated a new approach to African urban development. Cities that control their fiscal destiny can plan for long-term growth. The next phase requires specific policy changes: constitutional amendments that guarantee municipal fiscal authority. We need regional frameworks that support cross-border collaboration. And we need international partnerships that strengthen local capacity rather than bypass it. African cities are not broken versions of global West municipalities – they are different economic entities that need different tools. The U20 summit began articulating what those tools might look like. The question now is whether African governments have the political will to provide them. By 2050, the success or failure of African cities will determine the trajectory of the global economy. Getting urban financing right is a global necessity. NOW READ: Africa Food Show: Tapping into the potential of the continent's food and beverage market
