logo
Ramaphosa unaware of SANDF chief's controversial Iran visit

Ramaphosa unaware of SANDF chief's controversial Iran visit

The Star7 hours ago
Mayibongwe Maqhina | Published 5 hours ago
The Presidency on Thursday night said President Cyril Ramaphosa was unaware of the 'ill-advised' visit by South African National Defence Force (SANDF) Chief Rudzani Maphwanywa to Iran.
Addressing the media, Ramaphosa's spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said Ramaphosa did not sanction Maphwanya's visit.
He stated that it was Defence Minister Angie Motshekga, not Ramaphosa, who approved Maphwanya's travel.
'As much as the president is the appointing authority and the commander-in-chief, he does not get involved in supervising the general's travel. That process sits with the minister. So the president did not know.'
Maphwanya was quoted by Iranian media as pledging 'common goals' with Iran and said his trip carried 'a political message'.
Magwenya said there was a concern about Maphwanya's trip.
'At this period of heightened geopolitical tensions as well as conflict in the Middle East, one can say the visit was ill advised and more so the expectation is that the general should have been a lot more circumspect with the comments he makes, which delve into the area of foreign policy that only the president, as well as the Department of International Relations, are responsible for.'
Maphwanya's trip took place amid tensions between South Africa and the US President Donald Trump imposed 30% tariffs on South African goods, which were implemented this month.
Magwenya said South Africa was in a process of resetting diplomatic and political relations with the United States, as well as balancing the trade relationship in a mutually beneficial manner between the two countries.
'Of resolving the relationship or resolving issues around the relationship with the US, you then have senior government or military officials in statements that will further inflame the situation. It is not helpful at all,' he said.
Both the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) and the Defence have distanced themselves from Maphwanya's remarks, citing that Ramaphosa and DIRCO were custodians of foreign policy.
Magwenya said Ramaphosa will meet Maphwanya within the next week regarding his 'ill-advised' trip.
'I can't say when that meeting will happen, but there will be an engagement between the president and the general. So it's still early to say what the outcome of that engagement will be.'
He would not comment on the possible consequence, if there was to be any, for the defence's chief amid calls by the DA for him to be hauled before a court martial.
'It is also difficult to speak to. One must consider what constitutes the grave nature of charges or accusations that would require a court-martial ,' Magwenya said.
Deputy Defence Minister Bantu Holomisa told Newzroom Afrika that he was unaware of the visit.
'I don't know what the purpose of his visit was. It is only the minister who will be in the know. If he did not ask for permission to leave from the minister, then he will have to swim in his stew,' he said.
Holomisa also said such visits outside the country were authorised by Motshekga.
'The last word has been said by the Presidency, and the Presidency is the custodian of our foreign policy. There is nothing one can contest on that, but what we should be waiting for is either to hear the minister herself addressing this issue or alternatively wait for General Maphwanya to come back and tell the nation how he went there, what was the purpose.'
He said since the matter was in the open, Maphwanya should be allowed to respond openly and be transparent about it.
Holomisa added that it was too early to say what would happen to Maphwanya.
'If he went abroad without permission from the president or the minister, he will have to face the music and explain on what basis he had to utter such words, which are creating controversy,' he said.
[email protected]
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The National Dialogue is going nowhere fast, and that's a great pity
The National Dialogue is going nowhere fast, and that's a great pity

Daily Maverick

time2 hours ago

  • Daily Maverick

The National Dialogue is going nowhere fast, and that's a great pity

The National Dialogue is dead, long live a national dialogue, or something to that effect… where or how to start such a dialogue, the lower-case one, is the next big task. We know that we have to talk, but we can't seem to agree on what to talk about, or whom to include in such talks. It's all rather bewildering. As mentioned previously, opposition to President Cyril Ramaphosa's initiative is, 'in one sense, a good thing', because it meant that people were engaging with the proposal, and that 'a measure of distrust of the government is always necessary'. In among it all lies the way forward, or rather 'a way forward'. For what it's worth, I remain convinced that the Diagnostic Overview of the National Development Plan is a good place to start, with the necessary updates, inclusions and adaptations. Opposition to Ramaphosa's National Dialogue has moved between positions of outright contempt, to self-dramatisation, bad faith and inauthenticity. Then again, it really was a stretch to imagine the Democratic Alliance, MK party and the EFF supporting anything put forward by Ramaphosa; they were, as they usually are, 'a little too precise, a little too rapid' in their response to the National Dialogue. My colleague Stephen Grootes used the term performative, which is a useful way of describing their responses. These political groups are, at least, consistent and have always presented themselves as indispensable for South Africa's future. Taking them at their word, they are the indispensables. The latest withdrawals will probably mean that the National Dialogue, in its current conception, will not start. The latest group of refuseniks who were meant to participate in preparations toward the National Dialogue have accused the president's initiative of rushing, of 'cutting corners' and of 'centralising power'. The latter is difficult to fathom because it seems to me that opening up a discussion on the country's future is actually about decentralising influence and power and about bringing together political and civil society. Never mind. Leading the most recent resistance, and what may well torpedo the president's initiative, are the Thabo Mbeki Foundation and the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation, the Steve Biko Foundation, the Chief Albert Luthuli Foundation, the FW de Klerk Foundation, the Oliver and Adelaide Tambo Foundation, and the Strategic Dialogue Group. At first glance, the new resistance projects an image of loyal criticism in the sense that they believe, for sure, that something ought to be done, and that they would like to be part of that something if the necessary changes and improvements are made. Closer scrutiny suggests that there may be a loss of the spirit of compromise with which Mbeki and the late former president FW de Klerk (and Ramaphosa, in particular) were familiar. It's all rather confusing. It's a bit like trying to figure out how something or someone can be all over the place at the same time. We have to wait and see what emerges. What I want to discuss is the idea of compromise, and of bringing the opposition into the room. The Mbeki-De Klerk non-compromise A long time ago, during the latter stages of the Codesa negotiations, I had a chat with former president De Klerk about compromise in politics and about its gains and losses. Regardless of what I (many of us) thought at the time, De Klerk believed he had made the greatest compromises, first, with his 'own people' about ending legal apartheid, and then with the ANC in the final months of the negotiations process. The conversation ended on a sobering note. 'You don't have to tell me about making compromises,' De Klerk said. And so I was surprised that the foundations of former presidents Mbeki and De Klerk were among the refuseniks. They would at least understand that Ramaphosa's initiative was somewhat of an acknowledgement that the ANC-led state had lost the power and will to steer South Africa, and that it sought to forge stronger alliances with civil society. All the more surprising was that the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation withdrew. They would represent civil society with a little less political baggage than the Mbeki and De Klerk foundations. Then again, the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation probably endorsed the (political) compromises that created the current Government of National Unity. The objective of that compromise, it seemed to me, was by and large to maintain the political and economic status quo that took shape after 1994. To the extent, then, that the envisaged National Dialogue included the main parties that gave us concepts like ' sufficient consensus ' in the early 1990s, one may be forgiven for believing that the Mbeki and De Klerk foundations would, at least, enter into preliminary discussions on the National Dialogue. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas Let's try to think harder about negotiations, bargaining and more honest discussions among political and social society. Bringing together political society and social society — all interested parties — into a room to discuss a way forward does not always guarantee optimal outcomes. As the tired idiom has it: turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Let's try a more sophisticated example, grounded in reality (turkeys don't actually vote, nè). Imagine a village, somewhere in Central America, that is plagued by crime, gender-based violence and drug abuse. A leader of the village suggests a 'dialogue' about crime, gender-based violence and drug abuse, and invites everyone into a hall to discuss what is wrong and what ought to be done about it. One suggestion is that the local municipality installs high-mast lighting as a way to curb criminal activities at night. Now, among the invited, for the sake of democracy, representation and inclusivity, are criminals who have an interest in darkness. Criminals thrive on operating in the dark. The initiative to install high-mass lighting fails because there is no consensus. The criminal elements on the guest list of civil society vote against high-mast lighting. It is at this point that the local leaders can simply go ahead and authorise installation of the high-mass lighting by some decree or authoritarianism, or on the basis of 'sufficient consensus', or by asking the criminals to vote against their interests. What will it be? What should it be? I just don't know. I return to the befuddlement of a political superposition — trying to figure out how something or someone can be all over the place at the same time. Nobody knows what will happen next. I don't know what will happen next. But because I don't know what will happen next, does not mean everyone else does not know what will happen next. Maybe somebody does know what will happen next. I think I mangled a line from the film The Milagro Beanfield War, but it works, kinda. For now, we remain in stasis — what has become South Africa's original position. DM

[WATCH] ‘We will be direct and honest' – Cyril Ramaphosa at the National Convention
[WATCH] ‘We will be direct and honest' – Cyril Ramaphosa at the National Convention

Eyewitness News

time3 hours ago

  • Eyewitness News

[WATCH] ‘We will be direct and honest' – Cyril Ramaphosa at the National Convention

JOHANNESBURG - President Cyril Ramaphosa delivered the opening address at the National Dialogue, a platform aimed at fostering inclusive discussions around South Africa's pressing socio-economic and political issues. Ramaphosa acknowledged that 'many things are broken' in the country, setting the tone for a series of conversations meant to address national challenges and develop collaborative solutions. The dialogue brings together leaders from civil society, government, and various sectors to chart a path forward for the nation.

National Dialogue: Everything you need to know
National Dialogue: Everything you need to know

IOL News

time4 hours ago

  • IOL News

National Dialogue: Everything you need to know

It is believed to be a phased, participatory process involving local consultations, sectoral discussions, and provincial gatherings. There is expected to be a second convention in early 2026 where a national programme of action will be adopted. The National Dialogue is a government initiative designed to unite South Africans in addressing the country's most pressing issues. This includes social, economic, and political challenges. Its purpose is to spark discussions at a grassroots level, identify common ground, build a collective vision for progress, and strengthen democratic processes. The National Dialogue is set to kick off despite several withdrawals and controversy. We take a look at the reason for the dialogue, the withdrawals and the controversy: The National Convention is expected to bring together 200 organisations from 33 different sectors. Only 557 people from 28 sectors had confirmed attendance. The first National Convention is scheduled to take place from August 15 to 16, 2025, at UNISA's main campus in Pretoria. Concerns and controversies Budgetary scrutiny: The estimated R700 million price tag has sparked public criticism, especially since the country grapples with service delivery failures and inequality. National Convention spokesperson Rev Zwoitwaho Nevhutalu clarified that the R700 million is a draft figure prepared by the preparatory task team, not a final government allocation. The conceptual funding framework projects 60% of costs from the government (fiscus) and 40% from donors (cash and in-kind contributions from businesses, private sector, civil society, churches, and municipalities). The Presidency confirmed that costs for the first convention are funded from existing NEDLAC and Presidency budgets, with UNISA providing venues and services free of charge. Ramaphosa also stated efforts are underway to reduce the overall cost. Parliament's Standing Committee on Appropriations has raised questions about funding sources and governance, insisting public money must be accounted for and allocated through an act of Parliament. Legitimacy and duplication: The Labour Party of South Africa filed a legal bid to halt the dialogue, saying it's a costly and dangerous duplication of the national legislature. It questioned the President's power to establish it if it aims to create policy and binding decisions. The Gauteng High Court dismissed this bid, ruling that the President is mandated to promote national unity and the dialogue has a rational link to this goal. "Elite capture" and exclusions: Civil society groups, like Free SA, argue the dialogue is "neither national nor a dialogue" because it excludes key political parties and entire sectors of society, making it appear more like a PR exercise. According to political analyst, Sandile Swana, it's a concern of "elite capture," where a document produced by ruling elites may not reflect the needs of ordinary South Africans. Talk shop vs. action: Critics view the dialogue as another "talk shop" disconnected from real challenges. They argue that South Africa needs delivery and practical solutions to issues like unemployment, poverty, crime, and failing public services, instead of more speeches or reports. Accountability for corruption: Critics, including #NotInMyName, argue that the government lacks the moral imperative to convene the dialogue while widespread reports of corruption and mismanagement of state resources remain unaddressed. There are warnings that unless the dialogue directly addresses issues like the Phala Phala affair, it will lack credibility. President Ramaphosa's Stance President Cyril Ramaphosa has defended the decision to proceed, stating that the National Convention is essential for South Africa's people to take ownership and control of the National Dialogue. He expressed regret over some withdrawals but was encouraged by their stated intention to still play a role. Ramaphosa has also urged women to lead discussions and participate actively in the dialogue, especially as the first convention takes place during Women's Month. He stressed that women, who are significantly affected by national issues, must be equally represented across all structures, including young and old, rural and urban, and those from diverse ethnic, linguistic, and LGBTQI+ communities. IOL

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store