‘Arrest Malema, ' Trump tells Ramaphosa
US President Donald Trump welcomes South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to the White House in Washington, DC, on May 21, 2025. Ramaphosa meets Trump amid tensions over Washington's resettlement of white Afrikaners that the US president claims are the victims of "genocide."
What began as a routine diplomatic meeting intended to reset US-South Africa relations quickly descended into a tense confrontation as President Donald Trump pressed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on the controversial topic of 'white genocide' and land reform in his country.
Held at the White House on Wednesday, the bilateral meeting featured high-level South African officials and business figures, including Cabinet ministers Parks Tau, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, Ronald Lamola, DA leader John Steenhuisen, labour federation COSATU's Zingisa Losi, and billionaire Johann Rupert. However, the delegation's composition, which even included professional golfer Ernie Els, sparked criticism back home for lacking key government figures and skewing toward elite business interests.
As cameras rolled in the Oval Office, Trump wasted no time diving into the inflammatory topic. He opened with graphic videos and clips of EFF leader Julius Malema, including footage of rallies where the chant 'Kill the Boer' was heard — a moment that set the tone for the rest of the meeting.
'We've seen a tremendous number of white farmers fleeing South Africa,' Trump said. 'We believe people are being persecuted, and we take that seriously.'
According to sources close to the meeting, Trump even demanded to know why Malema 'hasn't been arrested,' calling him 'an idiot.' He also cited what he claimed were rising numbers of Afrikaner asylum seekers and a surge in emigration as proof of a crisis.
The spectacle was reminiscent of Trump's past confrontational encounters with world leaders, including a now-infamous clash with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But unlike Zelensky, Ramaphosa remained composed.
Ramaphosa rejected the narrative of white-targeted violence as a gross misrepresentation. 'Yes, there are challenges with crime, but they affect all South Africans — black and white alike,' he said, while pointing out that the 'Kill the Boer' chant was the rhetoric of minority opposition voices and not reflective of national policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
37 minutes ago
- Mail & Guardian
Draft oil and gas regulations spark climate justice concerns
Seismic explorations for new oil and gas resources are going to escalate in the years to come. (Paul Botes/M&G) This is contained in a The Act is under review by the department, following its passage by parliament in April last year. The draft regulations are designed to implement the new law, which focuses on the orderly development of petroleum resources, equitable access and the sustainable development of the country's petroleum resources. The Green Connection said it formally endorsed a recent The regulations may fall short on several fronts, said Shahil Singh, a legal adviser at The Green Connection. 'We are most concerned about the issue of public participation. People may not be able to meaningfully engage with decisions that may affect their homes, livelihoods, and natural heritage if the terms that enable their participation are too restrictive,' Singh said. 'The definition of who qualifies as an 'interested and affected party' needs to be broadened to ensure that it does not silence those whose voices matter most — particularly small-scale fishers and coastal residents. 'Moreover, expecting communities to pay a non-refundable fee to appeal administrative decisions, could create obstacles to justice that marginalised communities should not have to endure. People should not have to pay to ensure that their voices are heard.' The global climate crisis necessitates an urgent and decisive transition away from fossil fuels, Singh wrote in the letter. 'The draft regulations, however, appear to promote the continued and expanded exploitation of oil and gas resources, directly contravening the country's national and international climate change commitments.' The Green Connection shared the 'profound concern'expressed in the joint submission that the promotion of gas as a transitional fuel, particularly for 'Methane emissions could potentially have a greater impact than those of carbon dioxide and may be up to eighty-two times more impactful over a 20-year period. 'We strongly support the joint submission's call for the draft regulations to explicitly define and incorporate critical terms such as 'greenhouse gas (GHG)', 'Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions', and 'sectoral emission targets'.' This is essential for alignment with the 'The failure of the draft regulations to mandate comprehensive lifecycle assessments that include quantification of all greenhouse gas emissions (including methane leaks and Scope 3 emissions) as well as the unquantified social cost of carbon, as highlighted by the joint submission, is a critical omission that undermines any claim of environmentally responsible development,' Singh said. Expanding fossil fuel infrastructure without rigorous scrutiny of the possible environmental and social implications runs counter to the global imperative for decarbonisation and South Africa's own stated commitments to a just energy transition. 'The Green Connection believes that the concerns and detailed recommendations articulated in the joint submission … are fundamental to ensuring that the regulatory framework for upstream petroleum activities in South Africa upholds constitutional environmental rights, promotes genuine public participation, protects our invaluable marine ecosystems and the livelihoods they support, and aligns with our urgent climate change obligations,' said Singh. The country's marine and coastal ecosystems are invaluable national assets, ecologically sensitive and critical for biodiversity and livelihoods. 'The Green Connection is deeply concerned that the draft regulations, in their current form, may fail to provide adequate protection for these environments against the inherent risks of upstream petroleum activities.' It aligned itself with the joint submission's assertion that the Act and its draft regulations appear to facilitate an accelerated expansion of oil and gas activities without adequately addressing the possibility of severe environmental impacts, Singh said, noting that this is particularly alarming for offshore exploration and production. 'We endorse the call for mandatory lifecycle impact assessments for all petroleum projects, which must quantify cumulative impacts, including those specific to marine ecosystems such as seismic impacts on marine fauna, potential for oil spills, and disruption of marine ecological integrity,' he said. The 'current vague reference' to 'possible impact on the environment' in notice requirements is wholly insufficient, he argued. 'The inadequacy of consultation requirements for offshore developments, which may exclude those with a significant interest if not 'directly affected' or if the landowner/lawful occupier concept is inappropriately applied to marine spaces, is a critical flaw identified in the joint submission that we support rectifying.' Coastal communities, particularly small-scale fishers, depend intrinsically on healthy marine ecosystems for their livelihoods, food security and cultural heritage. Upstream petroleum activities may pose direct and significant threats to these communities through potential pollution, displacement from traditional fishing grounds and adverse impacts on marine resources. 'We particularly highlight the joint submission's critique of regulation 23(1)(g), which vaguely mentions 'provision for co-existence with fishermen, where applicable', within local content plans, deeming it so vague as to be almost meaningless. Such provisions must be substantive and genuinely protect fishing communities. The broader failure of the draft regulations to create any meaningful obligations on rights holders to address and mitigate the adverse socio-economic impacts of petroleum operations on affected local communities, including fishing communities, 'is a grave concern we share with the joint submission'. The South Durban Community Environmental Alliance said in its comments on the proposed regulations that there is no provision made for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. 'There is also no plan for the transition to ensure a move from upstream fossil fuel developments to alternative sources as per the country's objectives.' The Climate Change Act aims to reduce carbon emissions and ensure the country moves from a carbon-intensive economy to a low-carbon intensive economy, however the draft regulations 'disregard this'. By disregarding the climate change question, these developments will result in more climate change-related disasters such as floods, droughts and runaways fires. Areas such as Durban that have been 'With South Africa having signed to commit to net zero by 2050, 25 years away (less than one term of a production right) this is a regressive piece of legislation,' it said.
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
MTN backs Starlink's South African operations, contingent on B-BBEE compliance
EFF rejects Minister Malatsi's unlawful attempt to bypass South Africa's 30% local ownership law for Elon Musk's Starlink, saying legal compliance and transformation must be upheld to protect jobs, sovereignty, and national security. Image: AP Photo/Francois Mori Giant digital communication network service provider, MTN, whose chairperson is South Africa's special envoy to the United States of America, Mcebisi Jonas, has expressed support for Starlink being licensed to operate in the country. However, this is only if one of the world's richest men, Elon Musk's satellite internet service licence, complies with black economic empowerment regulations. The company, which is originally from South Africa but operates in various countries across the continent, described US-based Starlink as one of the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) communication providers that could significantly accelerate connectivity, 'particularly in rural and underserved areas where terrestrial infrastructure is limited or costly to deploy'. 'By providing high-speed, low-latency internet, leveraging LEO capabilities could bridge the digital divide, supporting South Africa's national goals of broader digital inclusion, economic development, and innovation,' said MTN Group Chief Sustainability and Corporate Affairs Officer Nompilo Morafo. MTN advocates for partnerships with LEO communication providers, including Starlink, as these can enhance service resilience, extend reach, and improve customer experience, especially in challenging geographical areas. 'MTN welcomes cooperation and competition in the telecommunications space, provided there is regulatory parity,' said Morafo. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ It has been reported that Starlink currently operates in 18 of the 54 countries in Africa, and it would expand to 10 more states before the end of the year. MTN's Digital Infrastructure Chief Executive Officer, Mazen Mroué, had, on December 14, 2023, while he was still the group's chief technology and information officer, revealed that there were engagements with SpaceX's Starlink, with enterprise-grade trials under way in Rwanda and Nigeria. When asked if those MTN engagements with Starlink had been expanded to involve the latter coming to South Africa, the group said it did not comment on confidential market-specific discussions. 'MTN embraces the value of LEO satellite systems and remains open to partnerships that support the extension of connectivity across Africa, including South Africa, in compliance with applicable regulations,' Morafo said. It was reported in 2013 that President Cyril Ramaphosa's Shanduka Group had paid $335 million for a stake in MTN's Nigerian business. Soon before being appointed state deputy president, Ramaphosa disinvested from Shanduka to focus on his government responsibilities to avoid a conflict of interest. Former finance deputy minister Jonas was appointed MTN Group chairperson on June 1, 2018, and on April 14, 2025, Ramaphosa appointed him as his special envoy to the United States of America with the responsibility of advancing South Africa's diplomatic, trade, and bilateral priorities. This entailed fostering strategic partnerships and engaging with US government officials and private-sector leaders to promote South Africa. Currently, Starlink does not have an operating licence in South Africa after its attempts to get one failed due to Musk's disagreement with the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE) requirement that foreign telecommunication companies must sell 30% of their stake to local historically disadvantaged groups for them to operate in the country. Trump signed an Executive Order on February 7, which sought to isolate South Africa, following allegations that white Afrikaners were subjected to orchestrated genocide and anti-white black employment policies, and that South Africa had taken a hostile stance against the US and its allies, including Israel. This was attributed to Musk's fightback against B-BBEE regulations using Trump. Ramaphosa led the delegation to Washington to negotiate with Trump on May 21 to save South Africa/US trade agreements and recruit new investors. The Presidency had listed Jonas as among the delegation, but he did not go due to his business commitments, although he had contributed to the preparation of that meeting. Before the two leaders held a private meeting at the White House, there was a media briefing in which the issue of genocide and crime was discussed. It was in that briefing that South African billionaire Johann Rupert pleaded with Trump to assist South Africa with modern technology to fight crime and even suggested, in the presence of Musk, that Starlink should come to the country. The negotiation took place before it was reported that Trump had fired Musk as his senior advisor and Department of Government Efficiency head. When asked if Jonas had in any way participated in negotiations to bring Starlink to the country, Morafo said 'no'. 'In his capacity as MTN Group chairperson, Mr Mcebisi Jonas does not participate in operational negotiations relating to Starlink or any other specific vendor or technology partner. 'His responsibilities are focused on providing strategic oversight and governance at the MTN Group level, in line with the role of a non-executive chairperson,' she said. When called, Jonas declined to comment, saying he does not talk to the media as he works in the background. Communications and Digital Technologies Minister Solly Malatsi raised eyebrows when, on May 23, two days after the White House meeting, issued a statement announcing the relaxation of the B-BBEE Act in the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) sector to 'allow qualifying multinationals to meet empowerment obligations through alternatives to 30% ownership'. This opened the floodgates of reaction, including from politicians and civil society groups who believed that Malatsi was facilitating the licensing of Starlink by bypassing B-BBEE requirements. MTN said all communication companies should be treated the same and without favour. 'We advocate for a regulatory framework based on the principle of 'same service, same rules'. 'All service providers, whether terrestrial or non-terrestrial, should adhere to the same legal, regulatory, and socio-economic obligations, including those relating to customer registration, data protection, localisation, spectrum access, lawful interception, rural coverage, and B-BBEE compliance,' Morafo said.
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Words on wealth: the importance of financial regulation in protecting consumers
This article explores the critical role of financial regulation in protecting consumers from exploitation and ensuring fair market practices, highlighting recent challenges faced by regulatory bodies. Image: Ayanda Ndamane / Independent Newspapers. It shocked me to learn that the Trump administration in the United States, with the assistance of Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, had dismembered and severely impeded the function of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). This US government agency was established in 2011 under President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008. According to the US Treasury Department, the bureau is tasked with the responsibility to 'promote fairness and transparency for mortgages, credit cards, and other consumer financial products and services'. On its website, the CFPB says its central mission 'is to make markets for consumer financial products and services work for Americans – whether they are applying for a mortgage, choosing among credit cards, or using any number of other consumer financial products'. Wikipedia notes that many thousands of consumer complaints about financial services providers, including banks and credit card issuers, have been received and attended to by the CFPB. The CFPB is not the only US agency acting against unfair practices by financial services providers; there is the longer-running and more established Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has wide-ranging powers across business sectors that include enforcing antitrust laws. This has also been targeted by President Trump, who in March fired two of the FTC's Democratic commissioners, although the legitimacy of those firings is now being questioned in court. Which brings me to the topic of financial regulation generally. Force for good I strongly believe that regulation that levels the playing field, protects consumers from exploitation, and enables them to make better financial decisions is good for society as a whole, including the industry it regulates. Advocates of free markets would argue that companies in a competitive environment are self-regulating. I disagree. Competition is a powerful and vital force, but its nature is such that you will always have someone trying to make a quick buck by pushing the boundaries of what is normal or ethical. This is a big enough problem in a regulated environment; imagine how bad it would be in an unregulated one. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ A supreme example of pushing the boundaries is, of course, in sport - specifically those sporting codes that primarily test physical prowess, such as athletics, swimming, weight-lifting, and cycling. Before these sports became commercialised, there was little monetary incentive for athletes to cheat. Perhaps a small amount of cheating went on behind the scenes, but public perception was that the winners represented the pinnacle of human strength, speed, and endurance, and the sports codes were popular because people believed the competition was real and the winners genuine. That's not the case anymore. When I watch an athlete win a race, there's always the nagging question in the back of my mind: did he or she win on natural ability, or did performance-enhancing drugs contribute to the win? In which case, why am I wasting my time watching someone cheat? It started with a couple of risk-takers pushing the boundaries. Eventually, just to remain competitive, everyone was doping, inventing more and more elaborate schemes to evade detection. Moving targets Regulators typically struggle to keep up with the novel ways people find to push the boundaries. I like to think that the financial regulators have had more success than the sports regulators. In financial circles, there's a recent push by those on the fringes to market private equity investments, which invest in private, rather than publicly listed, companies. I have nothing against seasoned, wealthy investors putting their money into private ventures – they know the risks. I do have a problem when private equity investments are marketed to consumers who are not aware of the risks. There are currently at least two companies I know of that are marketing private equity products, including a living annuity, to the public, making out as if they are just regular products. Well, they are not regular. They carry a far higher risk for the investor than publicly listed equity. Pension funds, which have substantial assets and expertise behind them, are restricted by law to invest no more than 15% of their portfolio in private equity. And yet these fringe providers are asking consumers to trust them with their life savings.
