Was Ramaphosa heckling EFF's payback for White House embarrassment?
The EFF suffered major blows during the general elections last year, and the situation could get worse in 2026.
The EFF may have reverted to disruptive politics to punish President Cyril Ramaphosa for not defending the party during his meeting with US president Donald Trump in Washington earlier this month.
This is the view of Theo Neethling from the University of Free State (UFS)
In June 2024, during a press briefing in Cape Town, EFF leader Julius Malema said the outcomes of the general elections had left the party with no choice but to become meaningful contributors in parliament.
'This time around, we have taken a decision not to play any role in disrupting Parliament. We will be robust and engage to a point where we follow up on that which was rejected illegally in Parliament through peaceful protest on the streets,' he said.
However, all of this changed this week when at least 10 EFF MPs were reprimanded for disrupting Ramaphosa's Q&A session at the Good Hope chambers.
They made spurious points of order and argued with the presiding officer, which almost led to the entire session collapsing.
Embarrassment in the White House
Theo Neethling said the EFF's actions in parliament had a lot to do with the embarrassment the party had suffered in front of international media at the White House.
'I do believe what we saw in parliament has to do with what happened at the White House, the EFF was put on the spotlight [in front of Trump] and president Ramaphosa was in no position to defend the party and its leader.
'Julius Malema's radicalism became the president's embarrassment in the White House. John Steenhuisen also downplayed the EFF suggesting that they should never be part of the government of national unity.
'Mr. Johann Rupert also made a comment about their radicalism saying that he had been a victim of the EFF's politics for a very long time.'
Malema had defended his right to sing the Kill Boer song. But Neethling said the EFF were the visible losers in the discussions that had taken place in Washington.
'They are going to seek ways of compensating for this loss of face, and we must keep in mind that they have recently lost a significant segment of their leaders, and that is a serious blow to their future,' he said.
ALSO READ: EFF threatens legal action over plans to offer Elon Musk's Starlink
What does the EFF's future look like?
Another political analyst, Dr Imraan Buccus, said the EFF has become known for their populist actions, but this kind of politics does not advance national interest.
'These Utopian views on political activism lack the strategy and foresight, and the ability to grasp the balance of forces in society, and do not therefore help the future of South Africa,' he said.
The EFF suffered major blows during the general elections last year, and Buccus predicted that the situation may get worse for the Red Berets during the local government elections next year.
'The EFF aims to attract the young vote 18 to 30 but the reality is that even though Malema remains popular in this cohort it does not translate electorally because young people here and internationally express political enthusiasm but often do not turn up at the polls,' he said.
Meanwhile parliament is expected to launch formal disciplinary proceedings into the conduct of EFF members during the president's Q&A session.
The party is accused of denying South Africans the right to hear the president's responses and of disturbing the work of parliament.
NOW READ: 'He's talking rubbish,' Malema responds to Shivambu's comments on EFF
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
5 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
EFF vs fuel levy increase — court challenge tests legality of fiscal decisions
The EFF has filed an urgent court bid to block Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana's fuel levy hike, arguing it is irrational, economically harmful and unlawfully implemented. This is not just the EFF showing commitment to its stance against the increase, but a relatively novel legal precedent that could have far-reaching implications. A last-minute legal bid On Thursday, 29 May, the EFF filed papers in the Western Cape Division of the High Court to block a fuel levy increase announced eight days earlier during the Minister of Finance's Budget 3.0 tabling. The case makes an unusual use of Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court — a procedural mechanism regularly used to challenge administrative decisions — to challenge a fiscal measure introduced by the Treasury in Budget 3.0. 'We took this action after repeated efforts to caution the minister and appeal to his conscience failed,' said the party in a statement issued on the same day, stating that an increase without a Money Bill 'risks the entire national Budget being declared invalid by the courts'. Though it hasn't sparked the same political uproar as the aborted VAT hike, the fuel levy increase is just as important, as a fuel increase touches aspects of almost all supply chains, increasing costs across every facet of life. As economist Dawie Roodt told Daily Maverick, '… in terms of the effect on the poor, that is pretty much the same as the VAT increase'. The fuel levy increase — 16c per litre for petrol and 15c for diesel — is scheduled to come into effect on 4 June. The EFF is seeking urgent relief before this happens. The EFF Treasurer-General, Omphile Maotwe, told Newzroom Afrika the Treasury intended to gazette the increase on 3 June, 'to allow us no window or opportunity to interdict', hence the urgent application. The EFF's legal logic The application has two parts: Part A seeks an urgent interdict halting the increase and Part B calls for a full review and potential nullification of the decision, with the EFF arguing the increase must be reviewed in light of worsening inflation, stagnant wages and the fallout from the abandoned VAT hike. While it's true that the fuel levy is a regressive tax, Roodt argues that the Treasury's hands are largely tied regarding other measures to generate revenue. 'South Africa's tax burden is already dramatically redistributive. You can't make it more so,' he said. In its founding affidavit, the EFF argues that the fuel levy hike is procedurally flawed and substantively irrational. There was no consultation with Parliament, no socioeconomic impact assessment and no engagement with affected sectors. The party says the decision punishes low- and middle-income households already buckling under cost-of-living pressures. While the minister has statutory power to adjust the levy, the EFF argues that using this mechanism — without oversight or legislative process — amounts to executive overreach. The party called the increase 'yet another demonstration of the anti-black, anti-poor, neoliberal Budget the ANC government continues to impose on the people of South Africa'. No word yet from Treasury By the time of publication, the National Treasury had not responded to detailed questions from Daily Maverick about whether a socioeconomic impact study had been carried out, whether consultations with industry had occurred, and what the Treasury would do if an interdict were granted. This article will be updated once a response is received. Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni did not discuss the fuel levy, but defended the broader Budget at a briefing to the media on Friday, 30 May. 'This pro-poor Budget means [that] on every rand, 61 cents of consolidated, non-interest expenditure funds will be spent on free basic services … social grants for those in need.' A silent tax indeed The fuel levy is often called a 'silent tax' — embedded in pump prices and not itemised like VAT. Its revenue flows into the National Revenue Fund and is not earmarked for roads or transport. Between 2012 and 2022, the general fuel levy rose from R1.77 to R3.93. It now accounts for about 6-7% of pump prices. The 2025 increase is expected to raise R2.9-billion. Filling a 50-litre tank will cost about R8 more — a cost that ripples through logistics, transport and food prices. Unlike some OECD countries, South Africa lacks fuel subsidies or robust public transport, making the levy a heavier burden for poor households. Can fiscal decisions be challenged in court? Yes, as the EFF and DA's challenge of the VAT hike showed clearly — but this time the mechanism is different. That case primarily rested on constitutional and procedural grounds. In this matter, the EFF is invoking Rule 53, seeking a review of the minister's decision. The rule requires the state to produce the full record of decision-making, allowing the applicant to supplement their case. Rule 53 is usually applied to administrative actions — permits, suspensions, authorisations — and not budgetary policy. The stakes next week The urgent interdict will be heard on Tuesday, 3 June. If granted, the levy will be paused pending the main review. If refused, it may take effect as scheduled, making a later review moot. Should the court ultimately side with the EFF, it could invalidate the hike retrospectively, forcing the Treasury to re-table it through proper legislative channels. The ruling could also set a legal precedent, inviting future litigation over fiscal instruments previously seen as untouchable. Who really pays? Much of South Africa's fiscal debate is cloaked in specialised language: 'consolidation paths', 'debt stabilisation', 'medium-term frameworks', but the impact is direct: it's on you and I. Fuel taxes inflate the cost of moving people and goods, from taxis to tractors. The EFF's challenge isn't likely to unravel the Treasury's broader strategy, but it could set a strong precedent for how fiscal policy can be challenged; at its core, the case asks who gets to hold the pen when new taxes are imposed, and if the courts should step in if Parliament does not. DM
IOL News
19 hours ago
- IOL News
EFF rejects fuel levy as an attack on the poor
EFF treasurer-general Omphile Maotwe has written to Finance Minister Enoch Godogwana rejecting the fuel levy. Image: Nhlanhla Phillips / Independent Newspapers By: Omphile Maotwe On 21 May 2025, the Minister of Finance tabled the third version of the 2025/26 national budget. Instead of solutions to South Africa's deepening fiscal and social crisis, the Minister delivered a cold and calculated betrayal. He proposed an increase to the general fuel levy by 16 cents per litre for petrol and 15 cents for diesel. True to what the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) and the country has come to expect from the GNU led administration, the proposal was dishonestly framed as a 'regulatory adjustment' instead of a tax increase. This levy aims to recover R1.3 billion in revenue after the courts struck down the unlawful VAT increase that featured in the initial budget proposal. The EFF is clear that the fuel levy is not a regulatory tweak but rather a tax hike that is being unlawfully imposed through the Customs and Excise Act, instead of through the Money Bill Act, as mandated by section 77 of the Constitution. We reject this proposal precisely because it is illegal and anti-poor. Our Constitution empowers only parliament to impose a national tax through the money bill. The Minister should therefore not be using administrative regulation to introduce a tax increase. The levy is a tax, even the government's own Budget Review refers to this fuel levy increase as part of 'fuel taxes on petrol and diesel.' Proceeding with it in this manner will only serve to defy the constitution, undermine Parliament's authority, and rob South Africans of their right to participate in fiscal decisions that directly affect their lives. The judiciary was clear in its handling of the initially proposed VAT increase by the Minister. A 2% VAT increase was proposed which was brought down to 0.5% but ultimately through the work of the EFF, it was recognised as a tax measure implemented outside of the law by the judiciary and subsequently suspended. Yet here we are again with a Minister who is determined to continue to undermine parliament and the courts. As the EFF we recognise this as arrogance, contempt and a blatant disregard of the law. The economic consequences of this illegal fuel levy will be devastating. While R1.3 billion may seem insignificant to Treasury, its impact on the working class and ordinary people of this country will be economically challenging. Fuel costs are a direct driver of inflation in transport, food, and essential services. For a worker commuting daily, a student relying on taxis, or a small trader transporting goods, this increase is not abstract. It is an attack on their survival. Our country is facing an economic crisis. That much is clear but as the EFF we will always be the voice that shields the poor from carrying an economic burden that results from poor governance and mismanagement. The crisis was not created by our unemployed youth in Tembisa or the grandmother in Giyani. It was not created by the street vendor in Umlazi or the taxi driver in Mthatha. The crisis was created by the ANC government through corruption, mismanagement, and a neoliberal austerity agenda that punishes the poor and protects the rich. The EFF has taken decisive action regarding the fuel levy and on 26 May 2025, we wrote to the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance, demanding immediate parliamentary intervention. We called for the Minister of Finance to withdraw the proposed levy because it must be introduced through the Money Bill Act. We further urged the Finance Committee to place this matter on its agenda, summon the Minister to account, and reaffirm Parliament's constitutional authority over all revenue measures. This matter deserves urgent attention because if the levy is allowed to proceed in its illegal state, we run the risk of further legal challenges and collapsing the fiscal framework. No legitimate parliament would endorse a budget that is tainted by unlawful taxation. What is most alarming is that if the 2025/26 Budget is not adopted by 31 July as required by the Constitution, the government could face an administrative shutdown under section 21. The EFF however is not opposed to raising revenue legitimately. We support progressive taxation that will fund development, create much-needed jobs, and render services to our people. But taxation must be lawful, fair, and aimed at those with the most. The government needs to urgently impose a wealth tax, close corporate tax loopholes, and end illicit financial flows. Revenue can also be raised by scrapping the bailouts to failing state-owned entities but the EFF is against putting further strain on the poor and working class. Imposing a fuel levy is a political decision and must be recognised as such. The EFF will not be silenced or intimidated by political bullies who continue to disregard the law, due process and undermine parliament and our constitution. We stand ready to fight against the injustices that will emanate from this tax increase that is disguised as an adjustment. We will fight against it in the corridors of parliament, in the confines of the courtrooms, and ultimately on the streets and on the picket lines. We will challenge this decision because we recognise it for exactly what it is, a bid to squeeze the poor and continue to cushion the rich and politically connected. Parliament should not allow the fuel levy to proceed as it threatens to render our institutions irrelevant. The people of South Africa did not vote for a government that will govern without notice, and parliament should be at the forefront of protecting the people who have entrusted us to lead and represent them. We call on all progressive forces to demand accountability, consultation, and for parliament to reclaim its power. The time has come for parliament to decide if it will stand with the people of South Africa or bow down to an unaccountable executive. The EFF stands with the people. * Omphile Maotwe is the Treasurer General of the Economic Freedom Fighters and a Member of Parliament ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media
IOL News
19 hours ago
- IOL News
Rule of Law: Judicial Accountability is Healthy for Democracy
Protest: EFF leader Julius Malema led a march to the Constitutional Court demanding that President Cyril Ramaphosa be held accountable for the Phala Phala scandal. The question regarding the judiciary's independence is not so dissimilar to the former President Thabo Mbeki's reaction to the ANC's parliamentarians' vote to squash the establishment of a Multi-Party Committee to investigate whether President Ramaphosa has a case to answer on the Phala Phala farmgate scandal, says the writer. Prof. Sipho Seepe Umkhonto we Sizwe Party (MKP) argues that 'Members of Parliament are required to declare their assets; therefore, the same standards should apply to judges, who wield immense constitutional power and influence. Judges must be held to a higher standard of scrutiny and accountability. South Africa cannot afford to have a judiciary shielded from the same transparency expected of other arms of state.' The self-appointed guardians of our democracy would have none of it. The judiciary is a no-go area. After all, conventional wisdom dictates that judges are paragons of virtue. They cannot be compared to corruption-prone politicians and public officials. Counterposing MKP's call is an argument that says, 'Judges are already subject to the most stringent asset and income declarations of all public office bearers'. Also, subjecting judges to lifestyle audits would imply suspicion of corruption. If stringent processes for probing judicial integrity are in place, MKP's call should not pose a problem. A case of suspicion has been made. According to the 2018 Afrobarometer survey, a publication of the Institute for Justice & Reconciliation, 32% of South Africans suspect that judges are involved in corruption. In 2002, the level of mistrust was 15%. Chief Justice Mandisa Maya is on record that there are issues that require urgent attention including 'the report of the 2021 Afrobarometer survey that the public's trust in the judiciary has declined…loss of confidence in the judiciary does not augur well for the rule of law and our democracy'. She concluded that 'the judiciary itself needs to do an introspection and check if we are to blame for this change of attitude towards the institution.' Delivering the Nelson Mandela Lecture, former Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng raised a similar concern. 'There is an attempt to capture the judiciary…. any captured member of the judiciary will simply be told or will know in advance, when so and so and so and so are involved, we'd better know your place. Or when certain issues are involved, well, the decision is known in advance'. Far from being denialists, Mogoeng and Maya have approached the subject with a certain degree of maturity. Theirs is to call for vigilance against attempts to undermine (or shield) the judiciary. All that MKP has done is put the matter up for public debate. For Joe Soap in the street, the question regarding the judiciary is not so dissimilar to the former President Thabo Mbeki's reaction to the ANC's parliamentarians' vote to squash the establishment of a Multi-Party Committee to investigate whether President Ramaphosa has a case to answer on the Phala Phala farmgate scandal. Mbeki asked. 'Are we 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'. MKP's call for judges to be subjected to lifestyle audits coincides with President Ramaphosa's initiation of the process for the appointment of the Deputy Chief Justice. The position became vacant following the elevation of Justice Mandisa Maya to lead the apex court. For his part, President Ramaphosa nominated four judge-presidents. With Mahube Molemela (Supreme Court of Appeal having declined the nomination, the remaining contenders comprise Dunstan Mlambo (Gauteng), Cagney John Musi (Free State), and Lazarus Pule Tlaletsi (Northern Cape). The Judicial Service Commission, headed by Chief Justice Maya, is expected to pronounce itself on the suitability of the nominees for the position. To be clear, this is a political appointment. With the recycling of Mlambo after his failed bid for the position of Chief Justice, it is a safe bet that Mlambo will get the position. Hopefully, this time around, President Ramaphosa will not go for a demonstrably weak candidate. This would be a case of history repeating itself. A knee-jerk response to MKP will not remove the lingering suspicions of bias. First, far from ubiquitous misconceptions, judges are neither necessarily wise nor omniscient. They are no angels. They are as human and as fallible as all of us. They are prone to self-interest and self-preservation, which may not cohere with the principles of justice. Second, judges do not exist in a vacuum. They are socio-cultural and political animals. There are many instances where history and politics cloud their judgments. The Constitutional Court's ruling regarding a tussle between the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and AfriForum on changing street names is a case in point. In challenging the Tshwane Municipality regarding its decision to change street names to names of struggle icons, AfriForum had, among other things, argued that doing so would violate the constitutional right of the Afrikaner people to enjoy their culture. The Gauteng High Court had ruled in favour of AfriForum. A majority judgment by Mogoeng CJ concurred by Moseneke DCJ, Bosielo AJ, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Mhlantla J, Nkabinde J, and Zondo J, upheld the appeal against the lower court. Justices Cameron and Froneman dissented. This couldn't be a mere coincidence that all black judges saw things differently from their white colleagues. It is highly possible that socio-political and cultural experiences played a role in arriving at this ruling. Another instance relates to a case in which a full bench (three judges) of the Gauteng High Court decided to offer a political commentary on a matter involving Eskom. Nailing their political flags to the mast, the three judges contended that the 'new dawn that engulfed the country in 2018 did not miss Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (Eskom). It brought life to Eskom in that in January 2018, Eskom's old and inactive leadership was replaced by new leadership with new life to undo years of maladministration and corruption within the organization.' It didn't take long before the country was plunged into rolling blackouts. The fall from Ramaphoria to Ramaruin happened at lightning speed. Lastly, members of the judiciary have not covered themselves in glory. We need not go further than recall the unseemly spectacle that played itself during the publicly televised interviews for the position of Chief Justice. It was evident that Justice Raymond Zondo was a spectacularly poor performer. Only three commissioners reportedly gave Zondo a thumbs-up against the current Chief Justice Maya's twenty-one votes. A discerning individual would have declined the appointment. We must not underplay the extent to which many of our judges are beholden to neo-colonialism. After all, they are part of 'a native elite faithful and [compliant] to the needs of the colonialists. It was largely through educational processes at all levels that these elites were moulded and culturally turned.' It is not an accident that we have courts that foreground 'colonially borrowed languages; languages that are hardly understood by [their audience], and languages, which even these speakers handle with difficulty and grammatical inadequacies.' The sooner we demythologize members of the judiciary, the better for us. * 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.
