Tag:

economic freedom fighters

News

Ngizwe Mchunu Retracts Defamatory Statements Against Julius Malema After Court Ruling

by Rachel Morgan News Editor
written by Rachel Morgan News Editor

Media figure Ngizwe Mlando Mchunu has issued a formal, unconditional public apology and retraction to Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) President Julius Malema. This development follows two binding court orders issued in May 2026, which required Mchunu to legally address a series of highly inflammatory and defamatory remarks made against the political leader.

In a statement released on Thursday, Mchunu confirmed that he sought legal counsel and now fully understands the legal implications of the court directives. He has committed to refraining from publishing similar statements in the future and has formally withdrawn all defamatory remarks made both before and after the court orders were issued.

Addressing the Allegations

The retraction addresses several severe and unfounded claims Mchunu previously leveled against the EFF leader. These include accusations that Malema received 60 million from Nigerian drug dealers and illegal foreigners, as well as claims that he looted the collapsed VBS Mutual Bank and misappropriated funds in Ekurhuleni and through On Point Engineering.

From Instagram — related to Mutual Bank, Expert Insight

Beyond the financial allegations, Mchunu’s prior commentary included personal insults, such as referring to Malema as a “political devil,” a “dead snake,” and a “dog.” During an interview in Johannesburg on April 30, Mchunu had further challenged the politician to confront him at his location in Nkandla and stated that Malema “must go to jail.”

Unbeliavable Ngizwe Mchunu apologized to CIC Julius Malema, here is why
Did You Know? The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruled that Mchunu’s statements constituted defamatory conduct and explicitly ordered him not to repeat the allegations, whether “explicitly, impliedly, or otherwise.”
Expert Insight: This retraction represents a significant legal turning point. By moving from aggressive public challenges to a formal, unconditional apology, Mchunu is likely attempting to mitigate the potential consequences of failing to comply with the High Court’s directives. The outcome may serve as a reminder of the legal boundaries surrounding political discourse and the potential for court-mandated accountability in cases of defamation.

Potential Implications

With the issuance of this formal retraction, the legal pressure on Mchunu regarding these specific comments will subside, provided he adheres to the court’s prohibition on repeating the claims. Supporters of Mchunu may now face a period of adjustment as he calls upon them to accept his decision to comply with the legal requirements.

Potential Implications
Ngizwe Mchunu Retracts Defamatory Potential Implications

Frequently Asked Questions

What prompted the apology from Ngizwe Mlando Mchunu?
The apology follows two binding court orders handed down in May 2026 that required Mchunu to answer for defamatory remarks made against Julius Malema.

What specific claims were retracted?
Mchunu retracted claims that Malema received 60 million from illegal foreigners and Nigerian drug dealers, as well as accusations regarding the looting of VBS Mutual Bank and the misappropriation of funds in Ekurhuleni and On Point Engineering.

What was the court’s ruling regarding these statements?
The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria ruled that the statements were defamatory and prohibited Mchunu from repeating the allegations in any manner, including explicitly or impliedly.

How do you view the role of the judiciary in curbing inflammatory rhetoric in public discourse?

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
News

Didiza rejects motion of no confidence by ATM against Ramaphosa over Phala Phala inquiry

by Rachel Morgan News Editor
written by Rachel Morgan News Editor

National Assembly Speaker Thoko Didiza has declined a request from African Transformation Movement (ATM) leader Vuyo Zungula to table a motion of no confidence against President Cyril Ramaphosa. The request, which stemmed from the ongoing Phala Phala scandal, was rejected following similar efforts by the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party to invoke Section 102 of the Constitution.

Legal Grounds for the Decision

In her formal response, Speaker Didiza cited Assembly Rule 129(2), which requires the Speaker to prioritize motions of no confidence while consulting with the Chief Whip and the Leader of Government Business. She further noted that under Rule 129(3), such motions must comply with House rules, relevant laws, and directives from the Rules Committee.

From Instagram — related to Constitutional Court, President Ramaphosa

The Speaker determined that the motion’s grounds were already being addressed by the Assembly. This follows the Constitutional Court judgment in Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (2026) ZACC 17.

Didiza emphasized that the theft at the Phala Phala farm has already been referred to an impeachment committee for further inquiry. Under Rule 90, she stated that discussion of the matter should not be anticipated through other mechanisms while this process is underway.

Did You Know? The Phala Phala scandal involves the theft of $580,000 that was allegedly hidden inside a sofa at President Ramaphosa’s farm in Limpopo in February 2020.

Opposition Demands and Constitutional Rulings

The ATM and MK Party argued that recent events have undermined public trust in the president. The ATM specifically submitted a motion targeting both Ramaphosa and his Cabinet, claiming his continued tenure damages the integrity of the Office of the President.

The MK Party requested that any potential vote of no confidence be conducted via secret ballot to protect Members of Parliament from internal intimidation.

These requests followed a Constitutional Court ruling that found Parliament’s previous handling of the Phala Phala report was invalid and unconstitutional. The court overturned a December 2022 decision not to refer the matter to an impeachment committee and ruled that Assembly Rule 129I was unconstitutional.

Expert Insight: This situation highlights a complex procedural tension. While opposition parties are attempting to use motions of no confidence to force immediate accountability, the Speaker is relying on the strict sequence of parliamentary rules and the specific mandates of the Constitutional Court to channel the inquiry through a formal impeachment committee instead.

Current Status and Potential Next Steps

President Ramaphosa has denied any wrongdoing, describing the Section 89 Independent Panel report—chaired by former Chief Justice Sandile Ngcobo—as “flawed.” He has consistently rejected calls from opposition parties to resign.

Didiza rejects ATM's motion of no confidence

Moving forward, the President may seek to overturn the findings of the panel, as he has confirmed he will take the report on judicial review following legal advice. Meanwhile, Parliament is expected to establish the impeachment committee to conduct a full inquiry as ordered by the apex court.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did Speaker Thoko Didiza decline the motion of no confidence?
She declined the submission because the grounds for the motion are already being handled by the Assembly via an impeachment committee, as directed by the Constitutional Court. She also cited Rule 90, which prevents the anticipation of a matter already under inquiry.

Frequently Asked Questions
Constitutional Court ruling

What did the Constitutional Court rule regarding the Phala Phala report?
The court ruled that Parliament’s handling of the report was unconstitutional and invalid, specifically overturning the December 2022 decision not to refer the report to an impeachment committee. It also declared Rule 129I of the Assembly’s rules to be unconstitutional.

What is President Ramaphosa’s legal strategy regarding the panel report?
President Ramaphosa intends to take the Section 89 Independent Panel report on judicial review after receiving advice from his legal team.

Do you believe parliamentary committees or motions of no confidence are the more effective tool for ensuring executive accountability?

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail