No, Malema, the UK is not a bully
The UK is not bullying Malema by refusing him entry. Sovereign nations decide who crosses their borders based on national interest.
Surely, EFF leader Julius Malema could not have been surprised that the government of the United Kingdom turned down his request for a visitor's visa?
Much as he might weep and wail about the colonial masters again abusing African people, the reality is that London is quite entitled to decide who it allows through its borders.
And, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, to allow Malema to enter the UK 'would not be conducive to the public good'.
Apart from the UK government's concern that he had refused, in a 2022 Equality Court hearing in South Africa, to commit to not repeating calls for the 'slaughter of white people', the Home Office also noted he had voiced support for the Palestinian organisation Hamas.
ALSO READ: Banned again: Malema's presence not 'conducive to the public good', say UK authorities
The organisation is classed as 'terrorist' in the UK and expressing support for it is a crime, as Liam O'Hanna, a member of Irish rap group Kneecap, found out when he was charged this week for a terrorism offence after allegedly waving a Hamas flag at a concert.
The mood of much of the West would have been influenced by footage US President Donald Trump showed recently of Malema's rendition of Kill the Boer.
This visa refusal probably won't be the last for Malema.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Cut ties with Israeli varsities, academics tell Stellenosch University
Stellenbosch University. Image: Stellenbosch University PRESSURE is mounting on Stellenbosch University (SU) to suspend all collaboration with Israeli universities where there was a risk of direct or indirect involvement in human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. In a statement signed by 214 academics, the group noted that this had been a step taken by 'other respected universities, including recently the Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR)'. 'We agree with Annelien Bredenoord, President of the EUR Executive Board when she says that academic collaborations are normally based on academic freedom, but 'that freedom has limits when fundamental human rights are at stake'. We urge Stellenbosch University's leadership to officially and unequivocally add the university's voice to this world-wide call. We believe that future generations will judge our university and its leadership harshly if it does not take a stand on the outrageous acts being perpetrated against the Palestinian people in Gaza – acts which, to borrow from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), should outrage the conscience of humanity,' the academics stated. The SU is the only university in the Western Cape that has not severed ties with Israeli universities. The university came short of taking up a strong position following a council meeting last year. During a special meeting on April 30, Senate voted against a motion themed 'Proposed resolution for Stellenbosch University Senate on the Genocide and Destruction of Scholarship and Education in Gaza'. At the time the Senate voted 80 in favour, 101 against the motion, while 18 abstained from the vote. The proposed resolution had called for an 'immediate ceasefire and the cessation on attacks on civilians in Gaza and Israel, the passage of humanitarian aid and the return of all captives including the safe return of hostages captured by Hamas, and including the safe return of Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli prisons'. 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 ✕ It also called for the university to express concern and opposition to any attempts to 'curtail academic freedom by labelling criticism of Israel or Zionist policies as antisemitism' and to express solidarity with 'academic colleagues victimised for their willingness to speak out against the educaracide in Gaza', among others. The 214 academics maintain that the gross violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including the crime of genocide, being committed by Israel in its devastating assault on the Gaza Strip raise profound questions about the responsibility of universities to condemn such acts and avoid collaborating with implicated Israeli institutions. 'Unlike several other South African universities, Stellenbosch University as an institution has been largely silent on this issue. A Senate motion calling for an immediate ceasefire and the cessation of attacks on civilians in Gaza and Israel, the passage of humanitarian aid and the return of all captives was defeated on 30 April 2024. As concerned members of the University community we again call upon our University to take a public stand on the violations of international law being committed against the Palestinian people.' The group cited a 2018 Restitution Statement adopted by the university acknowledging and expressing 'deep regret' for its contribution to the injustices of the past. 'This is indeed a moment to embrace change at our institution, including taking an institutional position on Gaza,' the statement read. The collective in their statement also cited the South African government case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) alleging violations by Israel of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Stellenbosch University said it was not the only university, 'locally or globally, that has refrained from an institutional stance on this issue to safeguard academic freedom, and it has repeatedly expressed its sympathy and compassion for those affected by the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza'. 'Stellenbosch University (SU) recognises the severity and far-reaching impact of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. It is important to emphasise that our institution stands firmly for the principles of peace, respect for human rights, freedom of expression, academic freedom, and the principles of International Humanitarian Law. We are committed to supporting and fostering environments where all viewpoints can be heard and will continue to engage in this regard.' The university expressed its commitment to providing a space that encourages constructive debate and academic freedom. 'To fully perform its role in society, the university must maintain an environment of freedom of inquiry and expression. There are many instances where such robust conversations, specifically also on the crisis in Gaza, have been encouraged and welcomed on various SU platforms and its campuses. The most recent statement supported by Senate and other staff members in their individual capacity also testifies to the existence of such spaces of freedom of speech and expression at the University. The vote of the special Senate meeting also occurred in this broader framework and as an outcome of an inclusive and democratic statutory process. All academic discourse at SU takes place within the framework of the values of the University, namely excellence, compassion, accountability, respect, and equity.' CAPE TIMES
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
The political gamble of Floyd Shivambu: Is he overestimating his popularity?
Floyd Shivambu's political maneuvers raise questions about his future in MK and the potential for a new party. As he navigates a treacherous political landscape, will he succeed or face expulsion?" Image: X/floydshivambu Call South African politics and politicians many things but predictable is not one of them. Fresh from Liam Jacobs crossing over from the Democratic Alliance to his political nemesis, The Patriotic Alliance, South Africans were treated to another bombshell this week. Former EFF founder turned former uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) Secretary General, Floyd Shivambu announced he was mulling the idea of forming a new party of his own - but not yet. He will remain a member of MK for now. Confused? Don't be. Its the chess game of politics. Shivambu is pulling off the same stunt as that of former president Jacob Zuma, now MK leader. Remember how Zuma made the shocking announcement he was leading MK while still a member of the ANC in 2023? He was later expelled from the ANC and returned leading the pack with MK's spectacular victory at the last general elections. Malema did the same when he too was expelled from the ANC in 2012 - and went on to form the EFF together with Shivambu. The EFF too, drew massive support away from the ANC, which was the catalyst of the party's subsequent decline. Shivambu is playing the same game. Mudding the political waters. Daring the MK to expel him. Except he is not Zuma. Or Malema. South Africans don't take well to political chameleons. Party hopping does not work unless you are a huge political figure. Shivambu is a well known figure - but not a powerful leader in his own right. He was given wings by parties led by powerful public figures who command support. Shivambu was the think-tank behind the EFF and later MK strategist and national organiser. Less than a year after joining MK, Shivambu's wings were clipped before he could fly. Was that the issue? Was Shivambu seen as a threat within MK by Zuma's inner circle? His feud with Zuma's daughter Duduzile played out on social media as she unleashed her fury at his character, calling him the 'worst thing to happen to MK'. And, despite her apology, its well known the animosity between them persisted. The tussle for Zuma's ear and ultimately control of the party. Shivambu certainly hinted at that. His axing as MK Secretary General was the final clipping of his wings and clearly ruffled his feathers enough for him to make the decision to go out on his own - at some point. Shivambu no doubt has the backing of funders who call the tune. That's just how it works. Those who pay the piper, call the tune. But is Shivambu overestimating his popularity in taking on MK and the EFF? Calling the EFF a 'cult' and Zuma 'gullible' is hardly a recipe for success when those leaders still command a massive following, especially on the ground. And more critically, Shivambu lacks the charm - crucial when mobilising support at grass roots level. Both Malema and Zuma use their personal populism which appeals to their support base. Malema, a political demagogue, uses his kill the boer song to rile African support while Zuma's identity in Zulu tribalism is his draw card. Both the EFF and MK have leaders as their brand identities. Shivambu taking them on is brave but a huge miscalculation. Already, the response to him potentially forming his own party is being shot down by most South Africans. Social media is abuzz as South Africans weigh in. Shivambu is being called out as not trust worthy for visiting fraud accused fugitive pastor Shepherd Bushiri. He is also being taken to task for remaining within MK while talking of forming a new party. His bold announcement may have backfired. During his media briefing, a confident Shivambu threw several salvos at MK - a party he still remains a member of. He accused Zuma of being surrounded by 'political scoundrels' who he said 'take drugs and tweet at night' - a thinly veiled reference to Duduzile, the only one who has openly criticised Shivambu with her late night tweets previously. Clearly Shivambu is being led to believe the time is right for another political party. Its a path many before him have followed, some popular, others simply overestimating their popularity. And, despite the misguided reference to Zuma as 'gullible,' Shivambu knows too well his days with MK are numbered. He will be expelled. Others before him faced the same fate for far less transgressions within the party. Zuma will not tolerate Shivambu campaigning for another party while within the MK. And Shivambu's expulsion is not a question of if - but when. And, given Zuma's fury at Shivambu, that expulsion is likely to be fast and furious. Until then, Shivambu is a man on the ledge. ** Zohra Teke is an independent writer and journalist. *** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL IOL Opinion Zohra Teke Image: Independent Newspapers
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Constitutional Court: Champion of the People or Protector of the Elite?
South Africa's first woman Chief Justice and the head of the Constitutional Court Mandisa at her interview with the Judicial Services Commission on February 2, 2022. Image: Timothy Bernard/African News Agency(ANA) Kim Heller The thirty-year-old Constitutional Court is a living shrine to the supreme pledge of equality and justice in democratic South Africa. The real test of the highest court in the land is whether it is an effectual guardian of the people, especially of the most powerless and marginalised in society. In the injustice of apartheid, courts accorded legality to an inhumane regime and the judiciary was weaponised against the African majority. In democratic South Africa, justice must be done and seen to be done so that the historically disempowered can believe in the promise of a free and equitable nation. Early landmark judgments in the Constitutional Court affirmed the right of citizens to access life-saving HIV treatment, adequate water and housing. These judgements created an air of optimism that the apex court would be a faithful chamber of justice for ordinary South Africans. Another important victory for citizens was the Constitutional Court's ruling that permits civil rights organisations and individuals to present cases before it. However, the vital mission of safeguarding citizens' rights and improving fair access to justice has been frustrated by the sluggish enactment of crucial judgments on socio-economic rights, impaired state capacity, and a lack of government accountability. Recent entanglements of the Court in political wars have also negatively affected its standing and trustworthiness. The 2021 Constitutional Court's sentencing of former President Jacob Zuma to fifteen months in prison for contempt of Court without a criminal trial was celebrated by many of his political opponents. Amidst this cheer from his rivals, many ordinary South Africans saw this ruling as an ominous political weaponisation of the judiciary and a wretched betrayal of justice. Fury mounted, people protested, and over three hundred were killed in one of the worst outbreaks of civil turmoil in democratic South Africa. President Cyril Ramaphosa's Phala Phala matter was a case that tested the Constitutional Court's impartiality. After a Parliamentary Section 89 panel found prima facie evidence of misconduct by the President, he approached the Constitutional Court to review and set aside the panel's report. 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 ✕ Ad loading Ramaphosa's bid was dismissed, and the President was duly directed to the High Court. Many hailed this as an expression of equality before the law in South Africa. A grand show of exercising justice without fear or favour. Few wanted to recognise this as a potentially cowardly act driven by a fear of ruling on such a sensitive matter involving the first citizen of the country. The long delay by the Constitutional Court in delivering a judgment on the EFF and ATM's challenge to the National Assembly's decision not to act on the Section 89 panel findings raises concerns about the court's impartiality, constitutional accountability, and the burning issue of delaying justice. Politically charged, expedient legal judgements set a dangerous precedent for any court of law. The contamination of a single judgement can cast doubt over the entire body of good work done by the Constitutional Court and forever tarnish its standing as an independent legal organ. When legal precepts are sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, no one wins. Justice Edwin Cameron has spoken of how the legitimacy of the judiciary rests on the faith of ordinary people that "judges will protect the weak against the strong" and "the poor against the powerful." Research conducted by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) in 2023 showed that trust in the Constitutional Court had plummeted by over 20% since 2007. This decline is echoed in Stats SA's 2023 data, which revealed that trust in the judiciary was falling "consistent with wider patterns of disillusionment in state institutions." The IJR notes that "South Africans are increasingly seeing the judiciary as part of an elite compact that does not serve their interests". The responsibility of the Constitutional Court in democratic South Africa is monumental, given the country's history of racial oppression and lingering structural inequality. Access to justice is a cardinal pillar of democracy and essential to the Constitutional promise of equality for all. Former Deputy Chief Justice Dikgang Moseneke wrote how courts must never evade their responsibility as agencies of change. Justice Albie Sachs spoke of how constitutionalism is not about fine words on paper but that it is about the living pulse of justice in people's lives. Then South African President Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki is sworn in as President of the Republic of South Africa by the President of the Constitutional Court Justice Arthur Chaskalson (C) and Chief Justice Ismail Mohammed (L) at the Union Buildings in Pretoria, 16 June 1999. Image: AFP Transformative constitutionalism places the judiciary at the forefront of addressing structural inequality and fostering a new compact of social parity. However, the chasm between the lofty promises of the Constitution and the everyday injustices that still plague the majority of South Africans is vast. The real work and true triumphs of the Constitutional Court lie in delivering justice to the poor and marginalised by helping to dislodge inequality rather than perpetuate it. If it is to be a guard dog of elites rather than a guardian of the people, its promise will fade as surely as the Rainbow Nation itself. In an interview with City Press in 2020, Dr Muzi Sikhakhane SC spoke about how justice needs to be accessible to all rather than being the exclusive preserve of those who are experts in navigating the complexities of law. As the Constitutional Court steers its future it must avoid becoming a faraway fortress or an exclusive carriage of legal privilege. Extensive outreach programmes on legal rights and legal access would help boost it as an organ of people's power. The inclusion of African languages as languages of record in all courts across South Africa, including the apex court, is imperative if justice is to be done. Justice Albie Sachs spoke of how we do not want our Constitution to be 'a castle for the rich and powerful' and how rather we want it to be a refuge for the poor and marginalised. Our expectations of the judiciary may be too high. After all, the rule of law is not a precise science. Nor is it a godly creation or a holy piece of art. It is but the handiwork of men and women flawed by their specific biases, interests, and life orientations. The Constitutional Court, like our fragile democracy, is a work in progress. * Kim Heller is a political analyst and author of No White Lies: Black Politics and White Power in South Africa. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
