Steenhuisen says he stands by his comments that EFF should be kept out of power
CAPE TOWN - Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen said he stands by everything he said during government's official visit to the White House last week, including that the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) should be kept out of power.
The remarks on Thursday prompted the EFF to call on the National Assembly to condemn Steenhuisen's utterances, saying it sounded as if Steenhuisen was putting out an international hit on its leader, Julius Malema.
ALSO READ: We can't have EFF occupying Union Buildings, says Steenhuisen to Trump
As the spat denigrated to below the belt comments, Steenhuisen hit back, saying the EFF's poor electoral performance in 2024's polls indicated that the party is removing itself from the country's political landscape.
The EFF's Thapelo Mogale has slammed President Cyril Ramaphosa for not calling out Steenhuisen on his comments made about the EFF during their meeting with President Donald Trump.
Steenhuisen was responding to a video played in the Oval Office of Malema chanting the struggle song, 'Kill the Boer'.
'His words are tantamount to calling on an international inkabi to eliminate political competition.'
But in response, Steenhuisen repeated last week's remarks in Parliament that the EFF should not be allowed to reach the seat of power, calling it a party of chaos and corruption.
'I stand absolutely 100% by everything I said in the White House. That door must remain shut, and it must remain shut permanently. We don't need to call on foreign governments to get rid of the EFF, they are doing that all on their own.'
The EFF's Sihle Lonzi then took a potshot at Steenhuisen's romantic past, but Steenhuisen was unmoved.
'I've learnt in politics long enough that the only people who worry about what goes on in other people's bedrooms, have nothing going on in their own.'
The EFF said the United States has a history of interfering in the elections of foreign nations and Steenhuisen has opened the door to the same in South Africa.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
3 hours ago
- The Citizen
Premature to claim White House encounter as a South African slam dunk
The exchange delivered no economic deal, it left exposed to the world some of the grimmest aspects of life in this country and it has exacerbated tensions in the GNU The local consensus is that President Cyril Ramaphosa's visit to the White House was a great triumph. Overwhelming though that consensus is, it's mistaken. The pre-trip narrative was that, firstly, the SA team would put President Donald Trump right about the 'fake news' that led him to grant refugee status to Afrikaners, caused him to mistake land redress for property confiscation and led him to confuse economic transformation with racial discrimination. Second, SA would make it clear it would not be dictated to on such 'internal matters', or in how it conducted its foreign relations. Nevertheless, the main goal, once Trump had been put in his place, was to walk away with a solid trade deal. That's not how it played out. ALSO READ: Was Ramaphosa heckling EFF's payback for White House embarrassment? To date, there has been no announcement of any trade deal. As far as we know, given that some of the meeting was conducted behind closed doors, the foreign affairs friction was not even mentioned. Instead, the hubris that underlies the ANC's strategy in dealing with the US has caused another diplomatic gaffe. Having had its previous US ambassador declared persona non grata because of rude remarks about Trump, it made the same mistake again. Ramaphosa chose Mcebisi Jonas, chair of MTN Group, as his special envoy to Washington. Not only did Jonas in 2020 make deeply insulting remarks about Trump, but MTN is embroiled in four US lawsuits in which it is alleged that the company knowingly helped Iran-sponsored terrorist groups. Jonas didn't attend the White House meeting, supposedly at 'his own request'. ALSO READ: Is it a deal, Trump? — SA's proposed trade agreement with US after White House visit The Presidency spokesperson has since conceded that 'displeasure' from the Trump administration was the reason for Jonas' absence and that Ramaphosa may have to find a new special envoy. As for the schooling of Trump, well, what a disaster that was. Far from being smacked down, Trump placed the issues of racial violence and expropriation of private property under a mercilessly harsh global spotlight. The media can do as much fact-checking as it likes to debunk the false narrative of a white genocide. Grassroots international public opinion doesn't care to make much distinction between whether genocide is already underway or merely in the throes of being orchestrated. Worldwide, ordinary people were appalled by the footage of 100 000 EFF supporters in pseudo-military garb promising to 'kill the Boer, kill the farmer''. IN PICTURES: Ramaphosa meets Trump at the White House Ramaphosa's failure to condemn the chant unambiguously was a huge opportunity missed. All he managed was the mumbled response that such violent chants were 'not government policy', that most criminal violence was against blacks, and that whites were not being 'disproportionately' killed. Far from being a victory, the Oval Office debacle has put under critical scrutiny issues – political violence, expropriation without compensation, race quotas in employment and investment decisions – that until now have been largely glossed over by the media. It makes for a deeply unflattering picture of South Africa in the outside world and, at home, it immensely complicates the power dynamics between the ANC and the DA, its major partner in the government of national unity (GNU). Despite Trump's bluster, shabby showmanship and sometimes reckless exaggerations, it's premature to claim the White House encounter as a South African slam dunk. The exchange delivered no economic deal, it left exposed to the world some of the grimmest aspects of life in this country and it has exacerbated tensions in the GNU. If this is a triumph, God knows what a defeat would look like. READ NEXT: White House showdown? Ramaphosa looks to 'reset relationship' with Trump next week
Daily Maverick
10 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
Mail & Guardian
20 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Starlink raises questions about necessity and relevance of BEE laws
The licensing of Elon Musk's Starlink has sparked debate about whether South Africa's black economic empowerment laws are an impediment to growth or path to an inclusive economy The South African government may have said that black economic empowerment is not negotiable, but Starlink's battle to enter the market has brought into play the influence of international trade. During a Q&A session in parliament last week President Cyril Ramaphosa said his administration is seeking to create an inclusive economy making broad-based clack economic empowerment (broad-based BEE) legislation critical. Ramaphosa was asked a barrage of questions about racial categories by members of the National Assembly on Tuesday and whether he was willing to do away with BEE laws. Starlink's efforts to set up shop changed in February shortly after US President Donald Trump was inaugurated into office and the company withdrew from licensing hearings. Instead the company argued in submissions that its global policy does not allow local ownership. Democratic Alliance (DA) member George Michalakis asked Ramaphosa whether he would do a cross-departmental review of legislation that stifles investment and limits growth at 1%. This came after Minister of Communication and Digital Technologies Solly Malatsi, a DA member in the coalition government, issued a policy directive to review ownership requirements in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector. Malatsi Portfolio committee chairperson Kusela Diko had invited Malatsi to explain the policy directive and said other telecom companies do business in the country without complaint. Malatsi told committee members that his department sought to allow contribution to transformation besides share ownership to historically disadvantaged groups. Portfolio committee members accused Malatsi of seeking to draw back transformation for the sake of one multinational company and for using a ministerial policy directive instead of tabling a bill to amend legislation. After receiving public comments in the next 30 days, the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) will conduct a six-month study on whether equity equivalent programmes (EEIPs) can be implemented in the ICT sector. While the ANC is considering EEIPs under the Transformation Fund as an alternative to the 30% share requirement, it rejected Malatsi's policy directive, stating there was no deal struck during the Washington visit. Economic Freedom Fighters committee member Sinawo Tambo criticised Malatsi for using a ministerial directive to amend legislation, and said the tactic sought to circumvent parliamentary processes. uMkhonto weSizwe party portfolio committee member Colleen Makhubele said Malatsi was using a 'clandestine unilateral approach' to fast-pace licensing of Starlink instead of empowering 490 already licensed network providers. Although South African billionaire Johann Rupert, When answering Michalakis' question during the Q&A Ramaphosa said he would initiate a 'regulatory review process' that would unleash 'speed of execution' in government administration but doubted BEE was the issue holding the economy back. Corné Mulder, leader of the Freedom Front Plus, asked whether Ramaphosa was prepared to take a different approach, away from BEE and the Expropriation Act, to stimulate the economy. Ramaphosa said his starting point was the redress of past black economic exclusion and cited an International Monetary Fund report that highlighted the concentration of capital and ownership, where the top 10% own 86% of the wealth as the hurdle for growth. 'I'm rather surprised and taken aback when I hear that the policy of BEE militates against the growth of our economy. That I find surprising,' he said. 'If we accept that ownership of our economy is imbalanced, the clause on equality in our constitution seeks to undo that. So therefore ownership in our economy should be broadened,' he said. Build One South Africa leader Mmusi Maimane agreed that the EEIPs as an alternative to share holding are important to attract foreign investment and asked Ramaphosa whether these will be extended to South African companies. Ramaphosa said his government was looking at a number of laws that would address both past racial exclusion and growth to build an inclusive economy. 'To do so we need to take into account where we come from, what our constitution says, what our laws say and be able to move forward in a very determined way,' he said.
