Helen Zille's remarks on Afrikaner "opportunities" under scrutiny

Democratic Alliance (DA) Federal Council Chairperson Helen Zille.
Image: Itumeleng English/ Independent Newspapers
HELEN Zille has defended her comments that the Afrikaner community "took all opportunities very seriously" and there was "nothing stopping everyone else from following that example" despite backlash.
Zille took to X and wrote: 'Afrikaners took all opportunities very seriously. Educated their children into professional skills and out of poverty. Built huge enterprises from the bottom up. Nothing stopping everyone else from following that example.'
Many quickly called her out, citing the racist apartheid system.
Approached for further comment on Thursday, Zille told the Cape Times: 'Read the history of Afrikaners between 1902 and 1940, in any authoritative history. They started absolutely poverty stricken and economically excluded, and the story of how they changed that in the ensuing three decades is clear. The historical facts of the transition from poverty to prosperity of Afrikaners is well documented in many sources. Taking offence will not change this.'
This comes as the DA has turned to court to challenge the Employment Equity Amendment Act (EEAA), which the party believes will repel investors and discriminate against certain races.
Her comments also come as the 2025 Commission for Employment Equity (CEE) annual report showed that white people were eight times their Economically Active Population (EAP) at top management, while the black population representation at just 18.0% is four times below their EAP.
The statistics contained in the report forms part of the Department of Employment and Labour's basis to forge ahead with legislative amendments despite pushback from opposition parties, in particular the DA.
Employment Equity deputy director, Niresh Singh told a recent EE Roadshow in Pietermaritzburg that employers who are not compliant with the Employment Equity Act (EEA) will be excluded from doing business with organs of state.
'Designated employers must comply with Chapters II and III of the Act whereas those not designated have to comply only with Chapter II. They must attach the certificate of compliance which can only be issued by the Minister for a period of 12 months. The certificate can be revoked at any time for failure to comply.'
He told the gathering that the certificate of compliance issued by the Minister will only be issued when the minister is satisfied that the employer has complied with the numerical targets in terms of Section 15A relevant to that employer, if the target is not achieved, the employer must have raised a reasonable ground to justify the failure.
Singh said Section 53 has been in the Act since 1998 and was not promulgated then. 'And now it is promulgated and will be in force', he said.
General Industries Workers Union of South Africa (GIWUSA) president Mametlwe Sebei said it was clear that without any pressure, from the state, 'there's not going to be any de-racialisation of the workplace".

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Daily Maverick

3 hours ago

• Daily Maverick

US joining war on Iran creates major political headache for SA

With the world on tenterhooks following the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites, South African politicians have been notably cautious in articulating their initial positions. By sunset on Sunday, 22 June, as news of the extraordinary US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities at Israel's behest continued to ricochet globally, barely a single South African politician seemed willing to come out publicly with a position on the matter. Fikile Mbalula. Gayton McKenzie. Herman Mashaba. These are hardly shrinking violets when it comes to making their views known on forums like X — yet on the matter of the Iranian bombing, at the time of writing, there was a deafening silence from them. Neither was there yet an official statement available from either the DA or the ANC, suggesting that SA's two biggest political parties were to some degree agonising over what, exactly, to say. From Parliament's committee on international relations: niks. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) was mute on Sunday too, and a Daily Maverick query to its spokesperson, Clayson Monyela, went unanswered. Ramaphosa issues mild reprimand of US By mid-afternoon, President Cyril Ramaphosa had grasped the nettle — kind of — and released a statement that said relatively little. 'President Cyril Ramaphosa and the South African government have noted with a great deal of anxiety the entry by the United States of America into the Israel-Iran war,' it read, followed by a weak rebuke of the Trump administration. 'It was South Africa's sincerest hope that President Donald Trump would use his influence and that of the US government to prevail on the parties to pursue a dialogue path in resolving their issues of dispute.' The statement concluded, as is on brand for Ramaphosa, with a call for 'peaceful resolution'. Despite the fact that Tehran and Pretoria enjoy warm diplomatic relations, Ramaphosa's statement revealed the diplomatic egg dance that the situation presents to the South African government. South Africa cannot risk alienating the Trump administration further, with the relationship still on life support from the buildup to the Trump-Ramaphosa Oval Office showdown in late May. The Israel factor is a significant complication The difficulty for Pretoria is that the Iranian strike was overtly carried out at the behest of Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump's brief televised announcement, confirming that US fighter jets had targeted multiple nuclear research sites in Iran, ended not only with 'God bless the Middle East' and 'God bless America' but also, specifically, 'God bless Israel' — a closing flourish that left little doubt about whose interests were being prioritised. South Africa has positioned itself internationally as one of the staunchest critics of Israel's conduct, culminating in its landmark International Court of Justice case accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza. Pretoria has also publicly cut diplomatic ties with Israel, formally downgrading the embassy. In the face of this new regional escalation, it must now consider how to balance that principled commitment with its allegiance to Iran, a fellow BRICS member — while simultaneously avoiding direct confrontation with a still-dominant United States. With that in mind, the silence of the political class on Sunday was, frankly, understandable. BRICS buddies band together? South Africa and Iran have shared membership of BRICS since an invitation was issued to the latter at the 2023 Johannesburg summit. Other BRICS states were less hesitant in responding to the bombing. The Chinese foreign ministry issued an unambiguous condemnation: 'China strongly condemns the U.S. attacks on Iran and bombing of nuclear facilities under the safeguards of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency]. The actions of the U.S. seriously violate the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law, and have exacerbated tensions in the Middle East. China calls on the parties to the conflict, Israel in particular, to reach a ceasefire as soon as possible, ensure the safety of civilians, and start dialogue and negotiation.' Saudi Arabia, whose new BRICS membership sits awkwardly with its often-fraught relationship with Iran, struck a more guarded tone. Its official English-language X account posted: 'The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is following with great concern the developments in the sisterly Islamic Republic of Iran, represented by the targeting of Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States of America.' The United States, meanwhile, was vocally backed by a handful of close allies. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer offered a firm endorsement of the bombing, posting on X: 'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat.' But from other corners of the West, the reaction was unease rather than celebration. Carl Bildt, co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations, called the bombing a 'clear-cut violation of international law'. UN Secretary-General António Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the use of force by the US. A massively unpopular war Complicating the picture for South Africa is the fact that this conflict is likely to be widely unpopular across the globe — including among Western populations. Comparisons are already being drawn with the disastrous US invasion of Iraq in 2003, and social media suggests a growing generational divide in how such conflicts are understood as the post-World War 2 political consensus crumbles. Young people in particular are questioning why Israel, which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and possesses undeclared nuclear weapons, is held to a radically different standard than Iran, which remains under international inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This is also a moment when support for Israel is at an all-time low. Tens of thousands of protesters flooded European capitals over the weekend, voicing opposition to the ongoing bombardment of Gaza. In June, a YouGov poll showed support for Israel in Western Europe had sunk to its lowest levels ever recorded. In Germany, France and the UK, only between 13% and 21% of respondents now hold favourable views of Israel, compared to 63% to 70% expressing negative sentiments. As South Africa mulls its response, the stakes are particularly high. The government has sought to portray itself as a champion of the Global South, a defender of international law, and a broker of multipolar diplomacy. The entrance of the United States into open hostilities against Iran, with Israel applauding from the wings, tests every aspect of that narrative. DM

The Citizen

16 hours ago

• The Citizen

Viral claims about SA agriculture: Do white farmers produce most of our key crops?

Viral claims about SA agriculture: Do white farmers produce most of our key crops? While formal surveys show that white South African farmers produce the majority of key crops, this discounts much of the output of black farmers, which is often not reflected. Production by black farmers is often for household use and not reflected in commercial farming data. Neither are sales in small local markets. The claim that black farmers own '50% of all the land area when you add state land' is not backed up by any available data. It further disregards several important factors, for example that not all land designated as 'agricultural' is arable. For weeks in May and June, widely followed accounts on X have circulated eye-catching and divisive statistics about race and farming in South Africa. But ironically, these numbers originated in a speech aimed at debunking misinformation and were then misquoted and repurposed for a global audience. Where did it all start? The account @EndWokeness, which has 3.7 million followers, played a key role. It has a track record of spreading false information. In the past, some of the account's posts have been countered by community notes, which are factual corrections added by X users, though some of these have later been removed. False posts, like a viral story of immigrants to the US eating pets, remain on the site uncorrected. But as the Washington Post has reported, the account has often escaped consequences. It has boasted about making thousands of dollars a month from such claims and its posts are sometimes amplified by platform owner Elon Musk. In May, @EndWokeness took to posting about the 49 white South Africans who claimed refugee status in the US. While at the same time implementing sweeping deportation policies, US president Donald Trump has claimed that white Afrikaner South Africans face persecution, for example through employment equity laws and the false narrative of 'white genocide'. Based on this, Trump has allowed asylum claims from South Africans who are 'Afrikaners or members of a racial minority', even while blocking most other refugees. In this context, @EndWokeness warned that South Africa's perceived actions against Afrikaners would have negative consequences, claiming that 'white farmers currently produce' over 90% of all corn, soy beans, wheat, cotton, citrus, and almost all potatoes (99%). These stats were likely copied directly from a reply to @EndWokeness posted less than two hours earlier by another account, @CrazyVibes_1, which had added: 'Why are the black farmers not commercially producing? They do own millions of hectares of land. Approximately 50% of all the land area when you add state land.' But @CrazyVibes_1 was also copying. Its tweet, word for word including formatting and emojis, matched one posted in March by @twatterbaas, who has repeated variations of these same claims before. News24, South Africa's most-visited news website, identified @twatterbaas as Sebastiaan Jooste, a former farmer. After the investigation the government condemned what it called deliberate misinformation and the spread of racial hatred. Jooste's posts helped push these claims to a global audience, possibly even reaching Musk, the world's richest man. Yet no one along the way seems to have checked whether the numbers were accurate. So, Africa Check did. In his earliest post, Jooste said the statistics came from an February 18 X post by Wandile Sihlobo, chief economist at the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa, a group that represents commercial farming businesses. Sihlobo's post showed that his research was used in a speech by agriculture minister John Steenhuisen titled Briefing on malicious misinformation. In the speech, Steenhuisen said that 'South Africa remains an economically unjust society', including in farming. As evidence, he cited Sihlobo's estimates of the average share of black farmers in commercial agricultural output between 2015 and 2019 (though he mistakenly said 2015 to 2020). To calculate the output of white farmers, Jooste seems to have simply subtracted Sihlobo's figures from 100%. For instance, Sihlobo estimated black farmers produced 1.3% of commercially sold wheat, leading Jooste to conclude that white farmers must then produce the other '98.7% of all the wheat'. But this ignores key context. Widely shared stats are incomplete 'guesstimates' The original statistics came from a paper called Agriculture in South Africa, written by Sihlobo and Prof Johann Kirsten, director of Stellenbosch University's Bureau for Economic Research (BER). Their data was based on records from the National Agricultural Marketing Council (NAMC), which collects figures from agricultural organisations. For example, the Citrus Growers' Association tracks citrus exports and levies based on reports from its members. These organisations have committed to initiatives addressing inequalities in farming, and so keep some data related to race. But these records do not represent all agricultural activity in South Africa. The NAMC's data is limited to commercial activity reported by individual agricultural organisations. Kirsten told Africa Check that although quoted extensively, these numbers were 'incomplete … and in any case only a guesstimate'. He said 'it is very difficult to allocate a race dimension to agricultural output' without more comprehensive data and concluded the number was an 'inaccurate' minimum that could be much higher. Speaking to Africa Check, Sihlobo described Jooste's framing as 'a 'naughty' use of our valuable research'. Not only could these figures from 2019 have changed since, but black farmers in South Africa may well have a larger share in commercial agriculture than the statistics represent. While these figures are misleading, black farmers are underrepresented in agricultural output – but Jooste obscured the reasons why. Historical divides in commercial agriculture In his book A Country of Two Agricultures, Sihlobo explains that agricultural surveys typically exclude 'transactions in small value chains and sales in small local markets'. It is worth nothing that most South African households that farm do so mainly to feed themselves. According to Statistics South Africa estimates based on the 2022 census, 80.7% of agricultural households grow food only for their own use, and another 7.7% also sell some of it. These households usually don't appear in agricultural surveys based on commercial data. In his post, Jooste conflated commercial agriculture – produce eventually sold in formal markets – with 'all' produce grown in South Africa. There are many reasons why produce grown by black farmers is less likely to be recorded in these kinds of formal surveys. Dr Siphe Zantsi, an economist at the Agricultural Research Council, explained that historical divides resulted in black farmers not having access to the commercial sector to begin with. For example, Zantsi said, apartheid-era spatial planning has meant 'black smallholder farmers are located in remote areas (former homelands) that are far from the output markets'. These areas, also called 'Bantustans', were segregated areas designed to keep black South Africans out of major urban areas and political life. Zantsi also referred to a 2015 paper by South African researcher Stefan Schirmer, which noted that 'Apartheid … massively increased the barriers that black farmers were forced to confront', who were cut off from markets and confined to unproductive land, locking many into 'almost permanent forms of unemployment or employment in very low income jobs'. Kirsten further told Africa Check that an often-overlooked issue was 'who owns the best quality land and most productive land'. This helps explain why white farmers still dominate commercial agriculture. Zantsi noted that most agribusinesses in South Africa were white-owned, while black farmers often owned smaller pieces of land that were usually further from economic hubs, making it harder for them to sell in formal markets. This is supported by research that suggests South African commercial agriculture has been increasingly dominated by large, well-resourced farms. Zantsi cited 2013 research showing that as supermarkets became more powerful, they were incentivised to buy mainly from large commercial farms, pushing small-scale farmers out of supply chains. On top of this, there is the issue of land ownership, something that Jooste apparently tried to side-step, but not very deftly. It wasn't in the first version of his tweet, but at some point Jooste tacked on the claim that black farmers owned 'approximately 50% of all the land area'. This statistic veers far from all reliable data on the topic. Experts say inequality in agricultural land ownership is substantial and a key reason why black farmers have a smaller role in commercial agriculture. According to the 2017 land audit report, the most recent national data available, 72% of all individually owned land was held by white people. Land owned by individuals of all other racial groupings made up the remainder, including just 4% by 'African' or black individuals. In 2023, the Bureau for Economic Research estimated that around 25% of freehold agricultural land had been redistributed to black South Africans since 1994. This includes all land that has a registered title deed. But this land can be owned by multiple people or a corporation or other entity, which makes it complicated to determine ownership by race. Even so, the BER estimates that white farmers still own about 74% of freehold agricultural land, or 58 million out of 77.5 million hectares. Black farmers may own 13.5 million hectares (about 17%), but Kirsten said this was likely an undercount as title deeds did not include race and so surnames were used as a proxy, which could be inaccurate. Even if this is an under-estimate, nothing suggests that most farmland is black-owned. This could be why Jooste specified that black farmers own 'approximately 50% of all the land area when you add state land'. But the BER estimates around 6 million hectares of the remaining freehold farmland is owned by the government or has been restituted to black owners through financial compensation. Even if you include all of that, black ownership would still only equal about 25% of freehold farmland. A final category that could include farmland is rural land in the former homelands. Not all of this was used for farming, Kirsten said. Adding all of this and all government farmland, white farmers would still own around 60% of all farmland. This again contradicts Jooste's claim, but also misses the point that not all 'farmland' can be properly used for farming. Not all farmland can be farmed Of South Africa's 77.5 million hectares of freehold farmland, less than a quarter (18 million) is considered arable. Much of the rest is dry land like Karoo or Kalahari Desert, which has limited farming value. Black farmers are more likely to own land with little agricultural potential and the former homelands system explicitly carved out more valuable land for white South Africans. Efforts to redress these imbalances by providing land to black farmers have faced criticism. Zantsi explained that a 'lack of timely post settlement support' had left many beneficiaries without money or resources to run a farm. Sihlobo added that this land was generally leased, meaning recipients didn't actually own the land they farmed. This made it harder to get loans or to buy and modernise equipment. Land ownership in South Africa is complex and contested, and the data certainly isn't perfect. But even the most generous reading of the available statistics doesn't back Jooste's claim that most agricultural land is black-owned. It is especially striking that Jooste misused data from a speech meant to fight misinformation. By removing context, he gave a misleading picture of South African agriculture – one that distorts both its history and current reality. This article was first published on Africa Check. At Caxton, we employ humans to generate daily fresh news, not AI intervention. Happy reading!

IOL News

a day ago

• IOL News

Watchdogs say corruption, cadre deployment worse under GNU

One year after the formation of South Africa's Government of National Unity, civil society watchdogs say corruption is not only ongoing but worse in some departments. Image: IOL Graphics Talk is cheap, and the GNU is proving it. Civil society watchdog, Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse and Accountability Now warns that corruption has not just continued under the coalition government, in some departments, it's getting even worse. The GNU, formed after the African National Congress (ANC) lost its majority in the May 2024 general elections, has come under fire for continuing many of the same practices that plagued previous administrations. The GNU was established after the ANC entered into a coalition with its long-time rival, the Democratic Alliance (DA), and several smaller parties. While the arrangement was praised as a new chapter in South African politics, tensions over corruption cases, policy implementation, governance, and ethics have plagued the coalition from the start. Despite pledges to curb corruption, cadre deployment, and nepotism, these issues have persisted. Others argue that they have even worsened. 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 ✕ Speaking to IOL News, Wayne Duvenage, CEO of the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (OUTA), said while there have been signs of improvement in governance, particularly in departments led by the DA - corruption remains rampant. 'In fact, it's worse because the networks that exist within many of the government departments, especially in higher education and transport, are still plundering away. That I can assure you,' Duvenage said. He said that these networks were established during the fifth and sixth ANC administrations and continue to exert influence. Among the most notable scandals under the GNU are allegations involving senior ANC members: Human Settlements Minister Thembi Simelane, who reportedly took a R575,600 loan from the now-collapsed VBS Mutual Bank to buy a Sandton coffee shop while serving as the mayor of Polokwane. Appearing before the Justice Portfolio Committee in Parliament last year, Simelane denied any wrong-doing regarding the controversial VBS scandal and a loan she had taken to buy a coffee shop. President Cyril Ramaphosa has since removed Simelane as Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development following corruption allegations and moved her to Human Settlements. Mmamoloko Kubayi, who was the Minister of Human Settlements was appointed to the portfolio previously held by Simelane. She has also been linked to inflated billing with an Eskom contractor, claims she denies. Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni, who has been under investigation by the Hawks for R2.5 million in alleged tender fraud during her tenure at Ba-Phalaborwa Municipality. ANC secretary general Fikile Mbalula has previously defended Ntshavheni, saying that she has to respond to the allegations. IOL News previously reported that speaking at a media briefing three months ago, Mbalula said the party would not be drawn into commenting on the matter suffice to say that the ANC will respond on "something tangible". Accusing the DPCI or Hawks of trying to ruin Ntshavheni's image, Mbalula said law enforcement must not seek to find people guilty through media. Ntshavheni has not said anything regarding the allegations. Despite mounting calls from political parties for Ramaphosa to take action against the two, no action has yet been taken against either minister. Recently, the Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) has faced public backlash following controversial board appointments by Higher Education Minister Dr Nobuhle Nkabane, including figures with strong ANC ties, including Gwede Mantashe's son, Buyambo. The appointments were later withdrawn. The National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) has also been embroiled in corruption allegations. The previous board was dissolved, and the institution placed under administration. A new board has since been appointed, with a mandate to clean up operations. Duvenage acknowledged that the GNU has led to more civil society engagement and less unilateral decision-making than in previous administrations. He pointed to the rejection of a proposed 2% VAT increase as a sign of healthy political contestation. 'It's been going for a year, and it has had its ups and downs, but it has held its ground,' he said. 'The fact that they couldn't steamroll the budget through Parliament is a positive sign.' He added that despite ideological differences, the ANC and DA have managed to hold the coalition together. 'So far, actually, so good,' he added. However, Duvenage admitted that true accountability remains elusive. 'There's a long way to go.' Meanwhile, accountability advocate Paul Hoffman of Accountability Now emphasised the structural weaknesses in prosecuting corruption. 'The Zondo Commission identified more than 1,000 individuals involved in corruption. But the Criminal Justice Administration has done little,' Hoffman said. He criticised the Investigating Directorate Against Corruption (IDAC), established to tackle high-level graft, calling it ineffective. Hoffman argued that the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) is not independent enough to deal with serious corruption, as it operates under the control of the Department of Justice. 'The Constitutional Court has said corruption should be handled by a body outside executive control,' Hoffman told IOL News. 'The NPA is not that body.' The DA has previously introduced two bills in Parliament calling for a new Chapter 9 anti-corruption commission, a move Hoffman believes could be transformative, if passed. 'It will need ANC support to pass, requiring a two-thirds majority. Until that happens, the culture of impunity will continue,' he said. The DA has previously put forward two private member's bills to fight corruption and cybercrime. One calls for a new Chapter 9 Anti-Corruption Commission to tackle serious graft and organized crime, while the other proposes a Cyber Commission to deal with digital threats. He added that effective governance under the GNU depends heavily on whether structural reforms are enacted. 'The GNU has improved parliamentary accountability in some ways, like with the budget process. But that's not enough.' Hoffman also tied corruption to South Africa's broader socio-economic crises, including high unemployment, inequality, crime, and poor infrastructure. 'You can't grow the economy while investors are afraid of losing their money to corruption,' he said. 'Addressing corruption is the number one priority.' According to both Duvenage and Hoffman, without institutional reform and political will, South Africa's long-standing issues will remain unresolved. This comes as the GNU enters its second year, the coalition faces mounting pressure to act decisively. IOL Politics