ATM demands investigation and removal of Minister Gayton McKenzie over racist remarks
The African Transformation Movement (ATM) formally lodged a complaint against Sports, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie, alleging racist remarks aimed at black South Africans and calling for an urgent investigation and his removal.
The complaint, submitted to the Presidency, Parliament, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Ethics and Members' Interests, centers on tweets the ATM said contain 'racist slurs' directed at the black community.
McKenzie is embroiled in controversy regarding old social media posts dating back to 2011, shared on X (formerly Twitter) during his time as a businessman. The posts re vealed the use of highly offensive racial slur towards blacks.
In one of his posts, he criticised the term 'Black Diamond' while using a racially charged term that many in South Africa consider reprehensible.
ATM parliamentary leader Vuyo Zungula drafted the letter on Saturday. It frames the matter as a constitutional and ethical crisis rather than a political spat.
Zungula asserted that the tweets 'contain racially derogatory slurs directed at black South Africans, language that is both indefensible and deeply corrosive to the principles upon which our democracy is built.'
He argued that the issue 'is not a matter of political rivalry or petty offence. It is a matter of ethics, constitutional duty, and the moral fabric of the Republic.'
In the letter, Zungula further reminded readers of the country's struggle with racial oppression and the purpose of national reconciliation efforts.
'(The) tweets employ language steeped in historical racism, t he same kind of degrading rhetoric used to strip black people of their humanity during apartheid and colonial eras. '
Zungula also criticised McKenzie for what the letter describes as hypocrisy in response to remarks by younger podcasters, stating that ministers carry heavier responsibilities than private individuals.
Among the key passages cited by the ATM are calls for accountability and transparency.
'Public trust is the currency of governance. When a Minister openly or historically expresses racial prejudice, without acknowledgment, remorse, or corrective action, that trust is irreparably damaged.'
The letter added that an 'unrepentant Minister cannot credibly lead a department tasked with building cultural bridges and fostering unity.'
The complaint asks Parliament's ethics bodies to determine whether the remarks breach the Constitution, the Executive Members' Ethics Act, and the Parliamentary Code of Conduct, and to consider removing McKenzie from his ministerial post. It argues that his continued tenure undermines his office and Parliament.
The ATM also invoked several constitutional and statutory provisions, arguing that the Minister's conduct violates principles of non-racialism, equality before the law, the dignity of all people, and the expectations of ethical public service.
The party listed specific constitutional sections and ethics codes, including references to Sections 1(b), 9, 10, and 195(1)(e) and (i) of the Constitution, the Executive Members' Ethics Act, and the Parliament's Code of Ethical Conduct and Disclosure of Members' Interests.
'Given the gravity of the matter, I request that the Presidency, Parliament, and the Ethics Committee initiate an immediate and thorough investigation into the Minister's remarks, past and present; determine whether these remarks constitute a breach of the Constitution, the Executive Members' Ethics Act, and the Parliamentary Code of Conduct; and recommend to the President the removal of Minister McKenzie from his position, as his continued tenure undermines the legitimacy of both his office and Parliament.'
Requests for comment from the office of Minister McKenzie were not immediately returned.
However, on Friday evening, he wrote on his X account saying that : 'This whole campaign to find something racist I ever said is hilarious because you have now gone 13 years back and can't bring out one racist thing I ever said. I always and still fight that Coloureds and Blacks are one people being treated differently mistakenly.'
Meanwhile, ActionSA has reported McKenzie to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) for the racist remarks he made, which included the use of outdated and degrading slurs from the Apartheid era.
[email protected]
IOL Politics
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Citizen
2 hours ago
- The Citizen
Zuma and MK party file urgent court bid to challenge Ramaphosa's Mchunu decision
The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. Former president Jacob Zuma and the MK party have not given up the fight and have lodged an urgent application against President Cyril Ramaphosa in the High Court in Pretoria. The application by Zuma and the MK party comes after their recent loss in the Constitutional Court. What Zuma wants In the notice of motion, Zuma and his party want the high court to declare Ramaphosa's decision to place Minister of Police Senzo Mchunu on special leave. They also want the appointment of Wits law Professor Feroz Cachalia as acting police minister and the establishment of a commission of inquiry to be declared invalid, null and void and unconstitutional and set aside. ConCourt ruling The ConCourt on 31 July 2025 ruled that the application does not engage the court's jurisdiction and refused direct access to the MK party and Zuma in its matter against Ramaphosa. Ramaphosa's lawyer Kate Hofmeyr argued that cases that can exclusively be decided by the Constitutional Court are very limited. 'This matter does not fall within this court's exclusive jurisdiction. Very few matters do, and this is not one of them. 'Any allegation that the power was exercised unlawfully falls under our constitutional scheme to the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to consider first. Additionally, there is no pressing need for this court, on 10 days' notice, to decide the issues in this matter as a court of first and last instance,' Hofmeyr said. This basically means that Zuma and the MK party had to approach the high court first, which they have now done. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party case should've started in High Court, ConCourt hears [VIDEOS] The court ruling was handed down two hours after it hosted a special ceremonial sitting for retiring Acting Deputy Chief Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga, whom Ramaphosa appointed to chair a commission to probe explosive allegations by KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) top cop Lieutenant-General Nhlanhla Mkhwanzi of criminal infiltration in the South African justice system. Constitutional matter In his founding affidavit to the high court, Zuma said he is bringing the application in his personal capacity, but because the application is urgent and in the 'interest of justice' he is also deposing the papers on behalf of the MK party. 'The twin purposes of this application are to re-assert the merits of the application which were left unadjudicated by the Constitutional Court on account of its findings on exclusive jurisdiction and direct access; and to raise new grounds of illegality and irrationality based on events which arose post the 30 July 2025 hearing in the Constitutional Court,' Zuma argues. Zuma said that the present application is indisputably a constitutional matter. Section 169(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that the High Court of South Africa may decide any constitutional matter except a matter that the Constitutional Court has agreed to hear by way of direct access or is assigned by legislation to another court of a status similar to the High Court. 'This is such a matter because the Constitutional Court, rightly or in my view wrongly, declined to grant direct access. That decision must be respected as a fact until or unless it is set aside,' Zuma said. ALSO READ: Zuma and MK party accuse ConCourt of ignoring 'most serious' violations by Ramaphosa Urgency In his papers, Zuma argues that in his Constitutional Court application, Ramaphosa did not contest the urgency, exclusive jurisdiction, and/or direct access. 'The president sought and was allowed to opportunistically hide behind those technicalities to escape much-needed judicial accountability for the unjustifiable multiple breaches of the rule of law. There are no more hiding places. 'The serious and unprecedented revelations of alleged criminality made by Lieutenant-General Mkhwanazi, as another highly qualified whistleblower, in the tradition of former Intelligence Chief Arthur Fraser, can no longer be ignored or swept under the carpet at the request of the president,' Zuma argued. Zuma explains that the urgency of the application is 'clearly not self-created, and it can never be reasonably asserted that relief may be obtained in due course.' 'The impugned commission has already commenced and continues to operate at huge cost to the taxpayer. In the (unlikely) event of its delivering a final report in six months' time, the matter would still not have been heard in due course.' Cachalia Zuma also argues that Cachalia has since assumed office and will be 'making decisions which affect the security of the people of South Africa' while Mchunu 'who has been illegally placed on leave of absence by the president continues to earn a salary and enjoy other expensive privileges such as bodyguards, drivers, free ministerial accommodation, air travel domestic workers and the like.' 'It is trite that the matter involves very serious and unprecedented allegations of executive and judicial capture which, if true, constitute a threat to the very democracy prevailing in South Africa. 'It is impossible to imagine a greater catastrophe than that which would transpire if the allegations are true and the matter is not heard as one of the utmost urgency. In relation to the question of urgency, the merits must be regarded as true and proven,' Zuma argues. Senzo Mchunu Zuma also argues that there is 'no express legal provision which empowers Ramaphosa to place a minister on leave of absence. 'The respondents can therefore only rely on an implied power which is said to flow from the power to dismiss. 'It will be argued that the decision does not pass the reasonable necessity test because the power to dismiss in section 91(2) must not be confused with the power to dismiss an employee,' he said. 'Financial benefit' Zuma said the appointment of Cachalia is 'totally incoherent' and false explanations given by Ramaphosa in 'respect of this decision owe to the fact that it is rooted in improper motives and bad faith'. 'Its purpose if to grant undue financial benefits to Minister Mchunu at the expense of the taxpayer and to shield him from accountability and well-deserved dismissal or removal from the Cabinet. 'In explaining this appointment, the president has performed both somersaults and backflips in a series of incompatible volte face manoeuvres, all pointing to sheer irrationality,' Zuma argued. In his papers, Zuma argued that following the swearing in of the acting police minister, both Ramaphosa and Cachalia gave media interviews, with differing accounts of his official title and status. Questions to Ramaphosa Zuma's attorneys sent a letter to Ramaphosa on 4 August 2025, posing 15 unanswered questions regarding his actions and justifications. Zuma said Ramaphosa's response was 'inadequate'. 'Given the public importance of the issues and the imminence of the 1 August date for the assumption of office by Professor Cachalia, the matter cries out for direct access.' ALSO READ: Zuma demands Ramaphosa resign by Friday, or else… Madlanga Commission Zuma also argues that there is no legal provision which is capable of endowing the president with the power to confer upon the Madlanga Commission the powers which are reserved to the Judicial Service and/or Magistrates' Commissions, to investigate allegations of misconduct on the part of members of the judiciary. 'There are specific and well-accepted policy reasons why such powers are exclusively reserved for the bodies referred to above. These include the preservation of the independence, dignity and effectiveness of the judiciary.' The matter is expected to heard on 26 August 2025. ALSO READ: Madlanga inquiry: How much probe into Mkhwanazi's allegations will cost
The Citizen
2 hours ago
- The Citizen
‘We are truly sorry': Open Chats Podcast issues apology to coloured community after backlash
This is the second apology the Open Chats Podcast issued, after the first failed to calm the storm. The Open Chats Podcast team has released an apology to the coloured community and all South Africans after intense backlash over racist remarks made during episode 128. The controversy sparked national outrage, legal action and calls for cancellation. Now, the hosts are taking public steps toward accountability and education. Backlash over episode Episode 128 of the Open Chat Podcast ignited a firestorm. Remarks made about the coloured community were widely condemned as racist, sexist and deeply offensive. The clip quickly went viral, drawing outrage across social media. This prompted the Patriotic Alliance (PA) to file charges against the hosts. The controversy escalated when old tweets from PA leader and sports minister Gayton McKenzie were shared, showing him using the K-word. This sparked renewed debate and even calls for his resignation. The fallout spread far beyond the original podcast audience. It turned into a national talking point. ALSO READ: Zuma's former fiancée LaConco makes acting debut in Mzansi Magic's 'Genesis' Previous apology rejected The podcast's initial apology failed to calm the storm. Many South Africans viewed it as insincere, with TikTok users posting videos criticising the tone and delivery. The backlash only deepened calls for cancellation and heightened demands for genuine accountability. This week, in episode 131, the hosts released a new apology. They say it is 'serious, unreserved, and from the heart'. 'We take full accountability' 'We wish to unconditionally and unreservedly apologise for the hurt and harm we caused to the coloured community and South Africa at large. Our statements in episode 128 were racist, sexist, unfortunate, irresponsible, reckless, and unAfrican. We take full accountability for our utterances,' the Open Chats team said. The team acknowledged that their words had caused 'outrage and offence' across racial lines. They recognised that their right to freedom of expression could not be exercised in ways that stripped others of their dignity. Content removed and call for calm Episode 128 has since been removed from all official platforms. However, the hosts expressed regret that clips continue to circulate independently. They urged the public to stop sharing the content to prevent further harm. They have also committed to undergoing formal education on race relations at a reputable higher-learning institution, to ensure such incidents are not repeated. Working with the Human Rights Commission While the team had initially intended to approach the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) on their own, several political parties had already taken that step. The podcast's legal team is now liaising with the SAHRC to reach a resolution. They said they will comply fully with any directives issued. In a direct appeal to political parties critical of the podcast, the hosts invited open dialogue. They suggested a recorded discussion could take place in the future. Plea for forgiveness Closing their statement, the Open Chats Podcast hosts expressed remorse. 'We are disappointed with ourselves and the blatant disregard we showed when talking about a vulnerable group of people. We remain remorseful and request the forgiveness of the coloured community of South Africa. We are truly sorry for the damage we've caused.'
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
ANC defends B-BBEE as DA pushes to dismantle empowerment policies
African National Congress (ANC) stands firm in defending B-BBEE policies, highlighting their role in empowering millions and urging beneficiaries to protect transformation gains against the DA's push to dismantle these initiatives. Image: IOL / Independent Newspapers The African National Congress (ANC) has accused the Democratic Alliance (DA) of seeking to dismantle South Africa's transformation policies, which the ANC says have brought tangible change to the lives of the majority. The party has called on all beneficiaries of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) to defend the gains made under democracy. This comes after the DA announced a set of reform proposals aimed at empowering state-owned entities (SOEs), which it claims offer a better alternative to B-BBEE, employment equity, and the Expropriation Act, policies the party insists must be scrapped. Speaking at a media briefing in Johannesburg, DA leader John Steenhuisen said the three laws are major obstacles to economic growth. 'BBBEE and racial quotas have failed, and together with expropriation without compensation, create an environment that deters investment, growth and job creation for the majority of South Africans,' he said. Steenhuisen added that the DA is not against transformation, but argued that current empowerment policies have failed ordinary South Africans. 'These policies are simply not fair. They don't help the millions of South Africans who just need the government to get out of the way. These policies must go,' he said. He called for the replacement of B-BBEE and employment equity with measures based on need and merit. In response, the ANC said that transformation policies must be continuously evaluated and discussed by all South Africans to ensure they remain aligned with the goals of democracy, social justice, and equality, as outlined in the Constitution. 'The ANC recognises that these conversations and debates must be held among all South Africans, particularly to address concerns that such policies may be unintentionally creating a new form of elitism,' said ANC spokesperson Mhlengi Bhengu-Motsiri. 'To effectively tackle any unintended consequences, the ANC believes that the discussion must be guided by scientific findings.' The ANC said it supports the BEE Commission's call for focused evaluation studies to assess the impact of B-BBEE, stating that such research will help ensure the policy achieves its intended purpose of building a more equitable society. The party highlighted the recent findings of the 2023–2024 Analysis of Major B-BBEE Transactions report, which it says confirms that B-BBEE is delivering measurable benefits to ordinary South Africans. According to the ANC, companies invested R7.2 billion in enterprise development, enabling thousands of black-owned and managed small businesses and cooperatives to grow. Supplier development reached R40.7 billion, while R64 billion was spent on skills development, with a focus on young people, women, and rural learners. Bhengu-Motsiri said B-BBEE is rooted in the democratic framework and is designed to benefit 'black South Africans, that is Africans, Coloureds and Indians, and further extends benefits to white women, who were also historically marginalised in economic participation.' 'These empowerment measures have opened pathways for millions of South Africans into business ownership, corporate leadership, and skilled employment,' she said. 'We call on all South Africans who have benefitted from these measures, including those appointed to various positions in the private sector, to stand in defence of their own gains and reject any political agenda aimed at reversing the progress made.' As the leader of society, the ANC added that it will continue to evaluate all transformation policies to ensure they serve their intended purpose. 'Where these policies are found not to benefit those who were previously oppressed and marginalised, they will be reviewed and strengthened,' the party said. [email protected] Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. IOL Politics
