We don't need American solutions -Zuma
Jacob Zuma criticised President Ramaphosa's high-profile ministerial delegation to Washington, D.C., aimed at mending strained diplomatic relations with the Trump administration and attracting investment.
Former South African president Jacob Zuma has issued a pointed rebuke of President Cyril Ramaphosa's recent diplomatic outreach to the United States, suggesting that foreign involvement in domestic matters undermines national sovereignty.
Addressing a crowd of his uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party supporters in KwaMaphumulo over the weekend, Zuma questioned the legitimacy and wisdom of appealing to international actors, particularly the United States, for assistance with South Africa's internal challenges.
'Why must we expect strangers, sitting in Washington, to understand what we are going through?' Zuma asked during his speech. 'We know our problems better than anyone else. We should be the ones to solve them.'
The comments come just weeks after President Ramaphosa led a high-profile ministerial delegation to Washington, D.C., to mend strained diplomatic ties with the Trump administration and attract investment amid growing economic pressures at home.
The visit included meetings at the White House and with key business stakeholders, with the South African delegation seeking to promote technology partnerships and quell rising tensions over land reform and crime.
Relations between Pretoria and Washington have recently soured over controversial remarks from US officials alleging human rights violations and accusing the South African government of mismanaging key sectors. Ramaphosa's team used the visit to push back against what they termed 'inflammatory rhetoric' and to reaffirm South Africa's commitment to democratic principles.
Zuma, however, painted the outreach as a desperate move by an administration out of touch with its people. He stopped short of naming Ramaphosa directly but left little doubt about whom his remarks were aimed at.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
40 minutes ago
- IOL News
Tuesday's court outcome in the arms deal matter means Jacob Zuma has to stand trial – here are some reactions on X
A glum uMkhonto weSizwe Party boss Jacob Zuma contemplates his future after losing his bid to avoid prosecution for corruption relating to the 1999 Arms Deal. The Pietermaritzburg High Court has dismissed French arms company Thales' and former president Jacob Zuma's application to have charges against them relating to the 1999 Arms Deal squashed. @ZANewsFlash The Pietermaritzburg High Court has thrown out an application by French arms company Thales and former President Jacob Zuma to have their arms deal corruption trial dismissed. The corruption trial will now proceed as previously planned. @WothiJiba The Jacob Zuma/Thales case has nothing to do with justice. It has nothing to do with the awarding of arms deal contracts nor is there an allegation that he stole money from Government, yet the state has spent hundreds of millions on the case. Wasteful expenditure. @incontroZA It was politically motivated. Ramaphosa is going all out to get rid of Magashule and Jacob Zuma. Their cases won't end. Plus the Unchallenged, sole candidate for President is on the way. @Dumisan01399730 Former premier of Mpumalanga Province Matthew Phosa once said ' hate Jacob Zuma but don't lie about him'. By nature Jacob Zuma is a good person who accommodate everyone else. His good heart has made him to be vulnerable even to those who want to destroy him. @Sthe___Nxumalo It was always obvious that anything that has Adv Dali Mpofu & Jacob Zuma will never win anything in court — even if witness were all dead & evidence is absent, they would still stand trial & be found guilty. They can just always appeal & appeal to kill time! @Theblackjagua12 When was the last time Zuma won a case? @RogerKint69 Medical parole loading... @Lephondo2Mpho Knowing Mr Zuma, he's taking this judgement to the Supreme Court, to delay his date in court. DAILY NEWS
IOL News
42 minutes ago
- IOL News
Court orders RAF to honour R1. 4 million payment to undocumented Malawian immigrant injured in car crash
The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an application by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to rescind a judgment mandating the payment of over R1.4 million to a Malawian man who has been in the country illegally. Image: Pexels The Western Cape High Court has dismissed an application by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) to rescind a judgment mandating a payment of over R1.4 million to an undocumented Malawian man. Charles Jeka Chipofya has been living in the country since 1994 and has been married to a South African woman since 2008. They have two children. Despite his long-term residence, his attempts to obtain citizenship through marriage were thwarted due to evident abuse of the system by some African nationals. The Road Accident Fund found itself at the centre of controversy after Chipofya was involved in a severe car accident in Plettenberg Bay in September 2016. He filed a claim with the RAF, culminating in a proposed settlement of over R1.4 million in November 2022. In January 2023, a draft order was presented to the court on mutual consent between the parties, and RAF was ordered to pay Chipofya over R1.4 million. However, two years later, RAF reneged and wanted the court to rescind the order claiming that when it was made, it was unaware that Chipofya was an illegal immigrant. RAF said that when Chipofya submitted a copy of a passport, it referred to him as Charles Chipeta and not as Charles Jeka Chipofya, and this was suspicious. In response to this suspicion, RAF investigated to ascertain the circumstances surrounding his dual identity and it came to light that Chipofya owns two passports, one naming him as Charles Jeka Chipofya and the other as Charles Chipeta. RAF stated that when Chipofya was confronted about having two passports, he tried to attribute the discrepancy to a data capture error. However, in RAF's view, his explanation was unlikely, as it is improbable that such an error could occur. Subsequent to that, RAF said investigations revealed that one of the passports did not exist at the time of the accident. Additionally, the movement system record revealed that the visa on the other passport expired in December 2012. Moreover, there were no records showing that Chipofya left the country using the old passport or that he entered the country with a new passport after December 2012. In RAF's view, this could imply that Chipofya was either not present in the country on the date of the accident or was potentially in the country illegally. RAF argued that the order was erroneously granted and had the court been made aware that Chipofya was an illegal immigrant, the court would not have granted the order. Furthermore, RAF contended that the Immigration Act prohibits illegal immigrants from being in the country and extending claims of damages to illegal immigrants will create an enormous burden on the State. In response, Chipofya's legal representative argued that RAF had prior knowledge of his nationality and legal status before reaching a settlement agreement. Moreover, it was argued that Chipofya never misrepresented his status in the country and the settlement agreement was not based on the assumed existence of his legal status in the country. Judge James Dumisani Lekhuleni who presided over the matter, sided with Chipofya, and noted RAF had reduced the claim amount specifically because Chipofya was an illegal immigrant at the time of the offer, a fact that had been openly discussed during negotiations. "This conclusion is fortified by the fact that RAF's legal representatives advised Chipofya's attorneys that his claim would be reduced because he was an illegal immigrant. This averment was not disputed by the RAF or RAF's counsel," he said. In addition, he said Chipofya's medical reports and some of his documents, showed that he didn't have a valid visa and despite this, RAF settled his claim and consented to have the draft order endorsed in court. Regarding the different names, the judge said Chipofya provided a plausible explanation regarding the names and when RAF made the offer, it was aware of the discrepancies. Judge Lekhuleni emphasised that RAF is legally bound under the RAF Act to provide compensation for losses arising from road accidents, asserting that the Act does not discriminate based on a claimant's immigration status. "In my opinion, the current legislative framework of the RAF Act does not support the fund's position to exclude illegal immigrants from the application of RAF. "Eligibility for the RAF fund is not contingent upon a person's legal status within this country. An individual's legal standing does not influence their eligibility for RAF benefits. Simply put, it is not the person's immigration status in the country that makes a person legible to the RAF benefits," he said. RAF's application was dismissed. [email protected] IOL News Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
Eyewitness News
an hour ago
- Eyewitness News
Musk blasts Trump mega-bill days after farewell
WASHINGTON - Tensions between Elon Musk and Donald Trump erupted Tuesday as the world's richest man derided the president's key piece of economic legislation in a startling rupture just days after exiting a controversial job in the White House. Musk was lauded by the Republican leader as he left his advisory role atop Trump's "Department of Government Efficiency" last week, despite criticism over his failure to deliver on promises of radical spending cuts. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk posted on X as he followed its progress from the sidelines, in by far his most caustic remarks on Trump's agenda. "Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong." It was not Musk's first comments on Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill" which is set to add $3 trillion to US deficits over a 10-year horizon, despite deep cuts to health and food aid programs. But Musk's previous criticism was more restrained, with the Tesla and SpaceX magnate offering only that it undermined his cost-cutting efforts. On Tuesday he said the bill - being considered by Congress - would burden "citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt." His post laid bare an increasingly tense relationship between the White House and Musk, who donated almost $300 million to Trump's 2024 election campaign. Musk has become disillusioned, US media reported, as his goals for White House action that would benefit him personally have gone unrealised. The bill he was criticising cuts the electric vehicle tax credit - bad news for Tesla - while Axios reported that Musk was rebuffed in his efforts to extend his role beyond the statutory 130-day limit. He also failed to have his Starlink satellite system used for air traffic control, according to Axios, and was angered by Trump withdrawing the nomination of Musk ally Jared Isaacman to be NASA chief. The normally pugilistic Trump has pulled his punches, aware of his biggest backer's enormous influence over young, tech-savvy and historically apathetic voters - a key Trump constituency in 2024. "The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill, it doesn't change his opinion," White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters in a rapid response to Musk's tweet. The spat came with House Republicans set to pass legislation sent from the White House to enshrine into law $9.4 billion of DOGE's cuts, mostly money destined for public broadcasting and foreign aid. House Speaker Mike Johnson called Musk's comments "disappointing," adding that he had walked the entrepreneur through the bill on Monday, and that he "seemed to understand." BURGEONING DEBT As the world's richest person bowed out of his role as Trump's cost-cutter-in-chief, their relationship appeared on an even keel as the Republican hailed his fellow billionaire's "incredible service." Trump even insisted that Musk was "really not leaving" after a turbulent four months in which the South African born tycoon cut tens of thousands of jobs, shuttered whole agencies and slashed foreign aid. DOGE led an ideologically driven rampage through the federal government, with its young "tech bros" slashing tens of thousands of jobs. But its achievements fell far short of Musk's original boast that he could save $2 trillion - more than the government's entire discretionary spending budget for 2024. The DOGE website claims to have saved taxpayers less than a tenth of that total - just $180 billion - and fact checkers even see that claim as dubious, given previous inaccuracies in its accounting. Senate Democrats released a report Tuesday itemising 130 examples of "unethical or potentially corrupt" administration actions they say have helped Musk dodge regulation and add $100 billion to his wealth. The report came as senators began what is expected to be a fraught month of negotiations on Trump's mammoth policy package, expected to add between $2.5 trillion and $3.1 trillion to deficits over a decade. Trump said on Monday it was "the single biggest Spending Cut in History," although he added: "The only 'cutting' we will do is for Waste, Fraud, and Abuse."
