Latest news with #JairusMmutle
IOL News
a day ago
- Politics
- IOL News
What ConCourt gave our democracy in the past 30 years
Chief Justice Mandisa Maya delivers an address during an event marking the 30th anniversary since the establishment of the Constitutional Court in South Africa. The Constitutional Court has done excellently in giving us the scope and content of our human rights in the policies and laws passed by legislative bodies, says the writer. Image: Jairus Mmutle/GCIS Nkosikhulule Nyembezi THE 30th anniversary celebrations of the Constitutional Court's existence remind us of a lesson we have long since learned but have not yet sufficiently practised. The lesson is grounded in principle and experience. The principle is that we accept that the Constitution tells us that universal adult suffrage, a national common voters' roll, regular elections and a multi-party system of democratic government, to ensure accountability, responsiveness and openness are some of the values on which our state is founded. Our Constitutional Court has done excellently in giving us the scope and content of our human rights in the policies and laws passed by legislative bodies, such as in the 2006 African Christian Democratic Party case where it found that the right to stand for public office and the right to vote in free and fair multi-party elections 'form the high water mark of democracy.' It gave us human rights vocabulary and terminology identical to its judicial authority, such as in the 1999 August case permitting prisoners to vote where it found that the universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy, but also because 'the vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and of personhood,' as 'quite literally, it says that everybody counts.' It gave us an aversion to domination and abuse of power by not imposing itself on lower courts and other government branches. It gave us a human rights culture that is kindly reluctant to become obsolete, as it did in the 2020 New Unity Movement case that opened space for independent candidates to contest national and provincial elections along with political parties. It gave us the tools to withstand a divisive and exclusionary world of party politics. It ruled that the right to vote and the right to stand for public office 'are not dependent upon membership of, and support by a political party. They are equally available to all adult citizens.' 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 also ruled in the 2015 Kham case that although independent candidates may not have had the support of the big electoral battalions, they are 'entitled to stand for election and to be treated in the same manner as political parties.' This was our exposure therapy. It gave it generously. It gave us the ability to talk to anyone about human rights violations because we could not stand the awkward silences that our historical political polarisation provided, as in the 2016 Mhlophe case where it found that 'while every adult citizen enjoys the right to vote, the guarantee of free and fair elections is extended to every citizen regardless of age or active participation in voting. Even disenfranchised citizens and children are entitled to demand that elections be free and fair because, following an election, there must be a government for all and not only those who voted for the ruling party.' It gave us a cosy positioning of political parties in our multi-party democracy system which are private organisations fulfilling a public function, such as in the 2012 Ramakatsa case where it ruled that they are 'the veritable vehicles the Constitution has chosen for facilitating and entrenching democracy' and are the 'indispensable conduits for the enjoyment of the rights.' But citizens have paid a heavy price, and our democracy has suffered under selfish political parties that cannibalistically act as vehicles to articulate narrow group aims, failing to nurture political leadership, incompetent to develop and promote policy alternatives, and unable to present voters with alternative coherent diverse electoral choices. Things never seemed to be going well, so they gave the citizens and the Constitutional Court judicial instability and jurisprudential uncertainty anxiety, too. The lack of party cohesiveness in legislatures has contributed to stability that has spilled over to the courts because of the high volume of unnecessary cases – especially in a parliamentary democracy in which the majority party forms the government and legislators from that party usually support the political programmes and policies formulated by the members of the executive because of the enforcement of strict party discipline. We gave it things, too. We gave it some disappointment when we did not implement judicial decisions. Then we gave it gratification when we did, not just in a tick-box fashion, but in building a human rights culture and a resilient constitutional democracy. In that way, the citizens and the court gave our democracy something to marvel at. Our experience is that when independent candidates contest elections alongside political parties and give us as citizens the power to make political choices freely, we will benefit because of the diverse views expressed in election manifestos, how using citizen voting power will strengthen accountability and political control give legitimacy to political power, how participating in processes that will lead to peaceful change in power will enhance political stability and handing down to the young socially constructive values. This experience has been validated in the life of communities in every municipality ward, as this often manifests in the diversity of issues candidates canvass with local communities, including community-specific issues overlooked by political parties. Independents and party candidates still face appalling abuses. These include: political violence, pulling down and defacing of election posters, and political murders simply because they have disassociated from and are challenging established political parties. Some say all this is the legacy of a violent political culture and there is nothing anybody can do to eradicate it. I say it is criminal and we each must stop it.
IOL News
14-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Minister Ntshavheni's comments on misinformation spark AfriForum backlash
AfriForum criticises South African government's SSA stance on misinformation Image: Jairus Mmutle/GCIS AfriForum, South Africa's Afrikaner civil society organisation, has issued a strong response to recent statements by Minister in the Presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, concerning the role of the State Security Agency (SSA) in monitoring and acting against misinformation. During a National Council of Provinces session on Tuesday, May 25, 2025, Ntshavheni announced that the SSA would be taking steps against individuals and organisations spreading what the government considers misinformation about South Africa. She expressed concerns over claims by some minority groups alleging genocide activities by the South African government, assertions that experts and independent analysts have dismissed as misinformation, particularly relating to South Africa's stance on Israel's military operations in Gaza. AfriForum Response Kallie Kriel, CEO of AfriForum, responded to these developments in an interview with IOL on Wednesday, strongly criticising the government's approach. He argued that the South African government focuses on prosecuting organisations like AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement for engaging with international entities, including the US Department of State and former President Donald Trump's administration. 'The South African government now wants to prosecute AfriForum and the Solidarity Movement because these organisations dared to engage with President Trump's administration and the US Department of State. 'This is an alarming attempt to silence voices that challenge the official narrative.' He further criticised the government's actions, suggesting they reflect an increasingly oppressive climate. 'The Presidency's attempts to silence opposing voices through intimidation and prosecution do not create a favourable environment, especially with President Ramaphosa's planned visit to Washington,' Kriel said. 'Such tactics resemble those used by authoritarian regimes rather than democratic societies.' 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 ✕ Concerns Over Democratic Freedoms and International Relations AfriForum expressed concern that the government's focus on monitoring and potentially prosecuting organisations based on their international engagement could undermine democratic freedoms and stifle legitimate debate. Kriel accused the government of turning to undemocratic tactics. 'The Presidency now appears to be resorting to actions reminiscent of oppressive regimes to silence dissenting voices. This not only threatens civil liberties but also risks damaging South Africa's reputation on the international stage.' Government's Perspective on Security and Misinformation In her parliamentary address, Minister Ntshavheni emphasised the importance of safeguarding national security. She explained that the SSA actively monitors international political movements and support groups due to concerns over their potential influence on South Africa's domestic affairs. She highlighted efforts to combat disinformation campaigns, cyber operations, and ideological influences that could undermine public trust and destabilise democratic institutions. 'Disinformation and foreign influence operations pose significant risks to our democracy,' Ntshavheni said. 'The SSA's vigilance is essential to protect South Africa's sovereignty and ensure the stability of our democratic processes.' While the government emphasised the need to combat disinformation and protect national interests, AfriForum argues that such measures risk undermining democratic rights and suppressing legitimate dissent. IOL Politics
IOL News
28-04-2025
- Business
- IOL News
VAT increase signaled lack of ideas, integrity
Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana at the National Assembly Plenary Sitting for Consideration of the 2025 Fiscal Framework and Revenue Proposals. South Africa can no longer afford to bankroll a government that is far more expensive than it is effective, says the writer. Image: Jairus Mmutle/GCIS IN HER recent Mail & Guardian Thought Leader article, 'Budget: Why a VAT increase is the least bad option,' author Tara Roos tries, quite unconvincingly, to rationalise the idea of raising value-added tax (VAT) in South Africa. Her argument, while dressed in economic jargon and a tone of polite pragmatism, is not only flawed but also dangerously dismissive of the very real socio-economic crises gripping millions of South Africans. It is an argument so devoid of moral imagination and political courage that it almost reads like satire. Let us be clear: a VAT increase is not the 'least bad option.' It is, in fact, the laziest, most regressive and intellectually barren policy suggestion that can be put on the table. The problem is not that the government doesn't extract enough money from the public. The problem is how grotesquely and inefficiently that money is spent, and how scandalously protected those at the top remain from the fiscal discipline imposed on the poor. South Africa's fiscal woes cannot and must not be resolved on the backs of the already burdened working class. VAT is a consumption tax. It hits the poor hardest. Every loaf of bread, every litre of milk, every bar of soap becomes more expensive. For an economy already staggering under the weight of record unemployment, extreme inequality, and sluggish growth, proposing a VAT hike is tantamount to lighting a match in a gas leak and calling it economic reform. Instead of punishing the public for the state's failures, perhaps Ms. Roos should have directed her attention toward where the real fat lies: South Africa's bloated cabinet and overstuffed public sector. Why, in the face of austerity, do we still have a cabinet bigger than many G20 countries? Why do senior bureaucrats live like royalty while clinics go without bandages and schools without books? Why is it that the state always finds it easiest to squeeze the poor while preserving the privileges of the political class? A serious solution would begin with an aggressive slimming down of the cabinet and senior public service. South Africa can no longer afford to bankroll a government that is far more expensive than it is effective. And if the National Treasury is truly serious about fiscal recovery, the answer isn't taxing the poor more, it's empowering SARS to go after those who aren't paying their share. Rather than tinker with VAT, Treasury should be throwing money at SARS, enabling it to recruit more staff, sharpen its auditing capabilities, and extend its reach into the wealthy elite and corporate tax evaders who hide behind shell companies and offshore accounts. There is a vast reservoir of uncollected tax revenue. The problem is not the absence of money, but the absence of political will to go after those who have it.
