GNU Extravagance Making a Mockery of Austerity Measures
Deputy President Paul Mashatile delivers opening remarks at a roundtable discussion with the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) on March 19, 2025. For the past few days, there has been a war of words among different constituencies regarding Mashatile's expenses on international trips, says the writer.
Image: GCIS
Prof. Bheki Mngomezulu
When Deputy President Paul Mashatile appeared before Parliament to answer questions as is required in terms of the Constitution, he found himself having to respond to questions which went beyond his political work but touched on issues related to the current state of the country's finances.
Dr Teboko Letlape from ActionSA asked for a complete updated breakdown of all official travels by Mashatile since he assumed office on 3 July 2024. This included information about the purpose of each visit and whether it was justified or not; details about the countries visited; costs involved on each trip; the names and roles of each member of the delegation; and any additional costs on each trip.
While this appeared to be a normal question-and-answer session which both the President and Deputy President must honour, the questions triggered a debate which has caught the attention of many South Africans.
For the past few days, there has been a war of words among different constituencies regarding Mashatile's expenses on international trips. The bone of contention is about the amounts involved in these international trips which include countries such as Botswana, France, Ireland, Japan, United Kingdom, and Zimbabwe.
For the Japan trip, one source placed the figure at a staggering R580 582. Responding to this figure, Mashatile's office released a statement on 10 June 2025 arguing that most of the figures (including this one) were blown out of proportion. The statement said that the cost for the Japan trip was less than R66 000.
Among other things, the statement reminded the country that South Africa must strengthen relations with other countries. It also indicated that some of Mashatile's trips were undertaken following President Ramaphosa's decision to delegate him (Mashatile) while he was busy with other assignments. To take the nation into confidence, Mashatile's office provided what it called 'correct' figures and other related information.
While the question from ActionSA was fair, and while the response from Mashatile's office was justifiable and necessary, the main question becomes: what should South Africans focus on beyond being fixated on the debatable numbers that have been presented by different stakeholders?
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
In addressing this question, we should not lose sight of the need for the executive members to execute their mandate. We should also not ignore the fact that it is important for our country to forge new relations while strengthening preexisting ones. Importantly, as part of multilateral institutions like G20 and others, South Africa must remain visible in the global arena.
But, having said all that, there are many critical questions which have been invoked by the ongoing debate about Mashatile's international trips. The first question can be phrased as follows: given the country's economic situation, is it advisable for the executive to embark on too many trips which eat on the country's thin budget? A logical answer is an emphatic no! Any argument against too many trips should not be misconstrued to mean that there should be no international trip at all.
Secondly, given the reasons provided by Mashatile's office, what is the role of South Africa's foreign missions or embassies? If our embassies have properly trained staff, can't they do some of the work which is done by the executive?
In the same vein, given that most of the countries our executive visits have embassies with staff, is it not possible to use some of the staff members already stationed in those countries to assist our executive so that the delegation from South Africa could be trimmed to cut costs? In short, is there a return on investment when each member of the executive is accompanied by a big delegation? Is it wise for the South African government to equate itself with First World countries like America that can afford huge delegations? If the answer is in the negative, then we should cut the cloth according to our size.
Another very critical question is about the political parties which were very critical of the ANC during their campaigns for the 2024 general election. What has become of their criticism? Have they suddenly lost voices? If they were critical of the ANC because they were listening to the cries of many South Africans, did they miraculously become 'deaf-mute' as soon as they signed the historic statement of intent which produced the multiparty coalition which is touted as the Government of National Unity (GNU)?
The reality is that poverty is rife in South Africa. The high unemployment rate of 32.9 per cent is unacceptable. The high crime rate does not encourage foreign investment and tourism. Even continued inequality in the country is not something we can be proud of. To what extent has the coalition government assisted in changing this situation for the better?
One glaring irony is that many of the ten political parties that are in a coalition were vocal about our bloated cabinet during their campaigns. Even the ANC was in favour of a reduced cabinet. Intriguingly, after the 2024 election, all of that changed. The seventh administration witnessed a bigger cabinet compared to that of the sixth administration. The mundane argument is that this was necessitated by the coalition government. But were politicians more concerned about cabinet positions than being MPs to serve the people?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
2 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
CRL chair's claims against its executive director are 'defamatory', Forsa says
Freedom of Religion South Africa (Forsa) has strongly denied what it termed false and defamatory allegations made by chairperson of the CRL Rights Commission Thoko Mkhwanazi-Xaluva on Thursday. During a media briefing convened by the commission, Mkhwanazi-Xaluva alleged Forsa and its executive director Michael Swain had accused her, Cheryl Zondi and/or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation of receiving R1.5m from the National Lotteries Commission. Zondi was a witness in the rape trial of Nigerian televangelist Timothy Omotoso. Forsa said this donation was reported widely in the media. It said a press release from the National Lotteries Commission of December 13 2018 stated the Cheryl Zondi Foundation had partnered with the Izimvo 447 NPC and received R1.5m to aid their work for those exploited in sacred spaces. 'Neither Michael Swain, nor Forsa, has ever alleged financial misconduct of any kind. Such claims are false and wholly without any factual basis at all,' the organisation said in a statement. Forsa said it was disappointed that Mkhwanazi-Xaluva did not first seek clarity or engage with it before making public accusations and threatening legal action. 'Her subsequent laying of criminal charges against Michael Swain and Forsa is seen as vexatious and unfounded. It appears to be a personally motivated attack designed to intimidate and deter Forsa (or others) from opposing the chair's agenda to push again for state regulation of religion.' Forsa said it reserved all legal rights in its response to this matter and was considering appropriate legal remedies in response to these false and harmful allegations. 'These include a formal demand for retraction as well as amending its extant damages claim for defamation.' Forsa said it was not against any person or institution, including Mkhwanazi-Xaluva or the commission. 'On the contrary, Forsa supports all of its legitimate and constitutional objectives. However, our singular focus is the protection and advancement of religious freedom and related constitutional rights in South Africa.' Forsa said a letter from more than 20 senior religious leaders representing about 12-million South Africans was sent to President Cyril Ramaphosa in 2019, raising several concerns, including that Mkhwanazi-Xaluva simultaneously served as CRL chairperson and deputy chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation. The commission was a Chapter 9 institution, created to be independent and impartial, accountable only to parliament, Forsa said. 'Thus, its chair must avoid bias, preferential treatment and dual loyalties. Arguably, this includes keeping clear boundaries when interacting with organisations, especially advocacy organisations, linked to matters before the commission.' Forsa said under Mkhwanazi-Xaluva's leadership at the time, the CRL strongly pushed for state regulation of religion. 'A wide diversity of faith communities strongly opposed the CRL's proposal. The 'conflict of interest' concern arose because the CRL chair cited the Omotoso case as a high-profile example to justify the CRL's proposed regulation model (via peer review councils, licensing of religious leaders, etc).' Her appointment as the deputy chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation, therefore, created a strong impression of an overlap of interest and influence. 'On the one hand, the chair of the CRL is tasked with impartial interaction with faith communities, constitutional compliance, and safeguarding diverse religious rights. Acting as deputy chair of the Cheryl Zondi Foundation is an advocacy-aligned — not neutral — position.' This raised legitimate concerns about a conflict of interest on the part of the chairperson, Forsa said. 'It must be stressed that this in no way raises any concern or casts any suspicion on Cheryl Zondi or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation.' Since being reappointed, Mkhwanazi-Xaluva has continued promoting proposals for state regulation of religion, including the introduction of peer review mechanisms, Forsa said. It said it had consistently opposed this course of action, repeatedly warning that state regulation of religion was unnecessary, unconstitutional, unworkable and unaffordable. 'In Forsa's public education efforts to point out the dangers to religious freedom of state regulation of religion, we gave the historical background to the current context. One part of this extensive presentation referenced the 2019 letter to the president in good faith and with full transparency.' Forsa said the 2019 letter did not accuse Mkhwanazi-Xaluva of theft or corruption of any kind and did not contain any accusations against Zondi or the Cheryl Zondi Foundation at all.
eNCA
2 hours ago
- eNCA
Teaching money lessons early
CAPE TOWN - Understanding financial risks is a life skill, not just an adult concern. Those words are from JustMoney, a platform that helps South Africans to make good money choices. And, in Youth Month, youth financial literacy also takes the spotlight.
eNCA
3 hours ago
- eNCA
Concourt landmark rulings as it celebrates 30 years
JOHANNESBURG - This year marks 30 years since South Africa's highest court opened its doors not just as a courtroom and as a beacon of hope for justice, equality and Constitutional supremacy. Established after apartheid the Constitutional Court doors were first opened by former President Nelson Mandela in the land in 1995. Its first President was Justice Arthur Chaskalson under then Chief Justice Michael Corbett. Among the first justices on the bench were Richard Goldstone, Pius Langa and Ismail Mohamed. The court Chief Justice, Mandisa Maya. She takes over from Raymond Zondo, as the first woman to hold the position. According to Maya the ConCourt was entrusted with the responsibility to enforce constitutional limitations on the exercise of public power and safeguarding human rights. She was speaking at a celebratory event held in Braamfontein, Johannesburg on Friday. She says the court functions as an independent and impartial institution tasked to ensure compliance and provision of the constitution and serve as the ultimate arbiter of all constitutional matters. 📸| The 30th anniversary of the Constitutional Court. The @ConCourt is the apex court in South Africa and was established following the first democratic election in 1994. #GovZAUpdates — South African Government (@GovernmentZA) June 20, 2025 And over the three decades, it has done just that, handing down landmark rulings that transformed the law, protected rights and deepened constitutional democracy. Here are some of the most influential Constitutional Court rulings that changed South Africa. S v Makwanyane (1995) Issue: The death penalty Outcome: The death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and it should be declared unconstitutional. It was the court's first ruling. National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs (1999) Issue - Same-sex marriage Outcome - The impact of discrimination on gays and lesbians is rendered more serious. And their vulnerability increased by the fact that they are a political minority, not able on their own to use political power to secure favourable legislation for themselves. This also led to the legalisation of same-sex marriage- the first in Africa. Government of the RSV v Grootboom (2000) Issue: Right to housing Outcomes: The state must devise and implement within its available resources a comprehensive and coordinated programme progressively to realise the right of access to adequate housing. Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (2002) Issue - Inheritance under the African customary law of intestate succession Outcome - This ruling struck down male-only inheritance promoting gender equality. It found that the rule that male primogeniture wherein the eldest son inherits property was declared inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid, to the extent that it excludes women and extra-marital children from inheriting property. Bhe and Others v The Magistrate, (2004) Outcome - This ruling struck down male-only inheritance promoting gender equality. It found that the rule that male primogeniture wherein the eldest son inherits property was declared inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid, to the extent that it excludes women and extra-marital children from inheriting property.
