Poor Africans not responsible for unemployment, collapsing public services, says Malema

Amid rising anti-immigrant sentiment, EFF leader Julius Malema says African migrants are being scapegoated for crises they did not cause.

Malema maintained that unemployment, inequality and failing public services are a result of deeper structural and historical economic injustices, arguing that the blame should not be placed at the doorstep of migrants.

“Poor Africans from Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Nigeria, Somalia or elsewhere on the continent are not responsible for unemployment, inequality, or collapsing public services. Migrants did not privatise state capacity. Migrants did not concentrate ownership of land and industry. Migrants did not construct an economy incapable of absorbing labour.”

Instead, the EFF leader has criticised the attempt to redirect legitimate social anger away from capital and toward vulnerable African communities, accusing it of protecting the structures responsible for mass suffering.

“This is what global white supremacy relies on, as this is a system they put in place over a hundred years ago.

“The growing phenomenon of Afrophobia within South Africa must therefore be confronted with absolute political clarity because it represents one of the most dangerous expressions of false consciousness within the working class.”

EFF leader Julius Malema has criticised Ghana’s decision to repatriate its citizens from South Africa over fears of xenophobia, saying Pretoria should have been given more time to deal with attacks on foreign nationals through diplomatic and law enforcement channels. Speaking on the sidelines of the EFF Africa Day Summit on Thursday, Malema said Ghana’s response risks portraying South Africans broadly as hostile to African migrants when the violence is being driven by “a certain section of our society”. He said legally documented migrants who fear for their safety should receive state protection while authorities pursue perpetrators of attacks. Tensions between South Africa and Ghana escalated after a series of reported incidents in which Ghanaian nationals in South Africa were subjected to violence and harassment, allegedly with little intervention from South African law enforcement. The Ghanaian government responded by initiating the repatriation of its citizens and indicating its intention to refer the matter to the AU on grounds of xenophobia. “We think it was too quick ... The president of Ghana should have given us some time to really deal with this matter and we will get to the bottom of it ... Those who don’t feel safe, especially the legally documented, should be able to run to for safety, and they will be directed to rightful places where they’ll be secured,” Malema said. His remarks broadly align with the position adopted by South Africa’s government, which has described Ghana’s decision to push for an AU debate on xenophobia as “regrettable”. In a statement issued earlier this month, the government said it remained open to “constructive dialogue” with Ghana and argued that bilateral diplomatic engagement would have been preferable to escalating the matter to the continental body. The department of international relations & co-operation also said the government had moved swiftly to condemn intimidation and violence against foreign nationals after sporadic incidents earlier this year, adding that law enforcement agencies had been instructed to act against perpetrators. President Cyril Ramaphosa publicly condemned vigilante attacks during Freedom Day commemorations in April and reaffirmed South Africa’s ties with other African nations. The current wave of anti-immigrant mobilisation is linked to groups such as March and March, which have campaigned against undocumented migrants and foreign-owned businesses in townships and urban centres. Rights groups and African institutions have warned that the violence risks undermining South Africa’s standing on the continent and contradicts its long-standing pan-African foreign policy. Business Day

Malema was addressing the conference of the left arranged by the SACP with various political formations to discuss the challenges facing the poor and working class.

He called on the “left” to defend Pan-African solidarity because failure to do so would mean that it had abandoned its own mission, he said.

“The fragmentation of African people along nationalist and xenophobic lines merely strengthens imperialism and weakens working-class unity. This is why the question of left unity has become historically urgent because capitalism today operates globally through co-ordinated systems of finance, technology, military power, and ideological production, while progressive forces remain separated, defensive, and organisationally weak.”

The Pretoria high court has finalised the defamation case against cultural activist and media personality Ngizwe Mchunu, legally barring him from making further defamatory statements about EFF leader Julius Malema. The battle began earlier this month after Malema filed an urgent application against Mchunu following controversial public statements Mchunu made in Pretoria on April 28 and Johannesburg on April 30. Last week, the high court issued an interim interdict ordering Mchunu to desist from defaming Malema. Tuesday’s proceedings were for Mchunu to show cause why the interim interdict should not be made final. Mchunu appeared before court without legal representation, choosing to speak for himself. When judge Nomonde Khumalo offered him a Zulu interpreter, Mchunu declined, stating that he wanted to proceed in English so he could “run home and handle other personal responsibilities”. He also stated that he did not have a lawyer to represent him because he was unemployed. During his address in court, Mchunu argued that people working in parliament and other public figures should lead by example. He accused Malema of being a hypocrite, claiming the EFF leader had a history of defaming other politicians and members of the public dating back to his time in the ANC Youth League. “Malema made lot of defamatory statements including when he was found guilty by a magistrate. He made defamatory statements against the magistrate and they should have opened a case of defamation against him.” After his recent firearm conviction, Malema publicly attacked magistrate Twanet Olivier, labelling her “racist” and “incompetent”. Mchunu also claimed he was never formally served with Malema’s court papers, only finding out about the case online. “I was never served; I saw this on social media. Malema also posted about it on his page and that’s when I took this matter (as) legitimate.” He asked the court to dismiss the matter because he was telling the truth and had evidence to support what he said. “I am pleading to the court that I have never defamed anyone. I am a citizen of this country and I respect the constitution, my lady. I have never injured or killed anyone during our protest.” Malema’s legal representative, Mfesane Ka-Siboto, strongly opposed Mchunu’s claims, accusing him of lying under oath. Ka-Siboto argued that a permanent order was necessary because Mchunu had made highly damaging and baseless accusations against Malema. According to Malema’s legal team, Mchunu publicly claimed that Malema had received millions of rand from Nigerian drug cartels and was doing the bidding of illegal foreigners. Ka-Siboto argued that Mchunu’s behaviour was contemptuous, revealing that an urgent application for contempt of court was already in progress against him. “My lady, I am putting to court on record that Mchunu is not telling the truth and he is under oath.” In his defence, Mchunu attempted to shift the focus by accusing Malema of defaming other politicians, including President Cyril Ramaphosa over the Marikana tragedy. Mchunu confessed that he did not understand how the law worked and requested that the matter be moved to a criminal court so he could present evidence to senior police officers. “I ask the court to transfer the case to criminal court. No matter who will handle the case, I will bring evidence before them because I do have it,” he said. Khumalo then granted the final interdict in favour of Malema. Mchunu is strictly prohibited from publishing or repeating the defamatory statements, directly or indirectly. Immediately after the court adjourned, Mchunu continued to call Malema’s defence names inside and outside the high court. Addressing the media outside the court, Mchunu said there was no case against him. “There is no need to be a strong or weak case. Julius Malema is stupid and he has abused his relevancy and potential of him leading this country.” Mchunu and his supporters then marched from the high court to the Somali embassy in Pretoria. The march was joined by Nkosikhona Ndabandaba, also known as Phakelamthakathi. TimesLIVE

Malema told the plenary that while organisations claiming commitment to socialism drag their feet, capitalist forces are organising, which places their mission on the back foot.

“International capital co-ordinates across borders with extraordinary efficiency, yet organisations claiming commitment to socialism often remain paralysed by sectarianism, ego, historical resentment and ideological confusion.

“The inability of progressive forces to develop coherent organisational unity while capitalism consolidates globally represents one of the defining contradictions of our historical period.”

He said the future of African liberation depends fundamentally upon continental solidarity, regional industrialisation, and co-ordinated resistance against global systems of extraction and dependency.

Referring to Frantz Fanon, the EFF leader quoted him as correctly understanding that colonialism and capitalism were not merely systems of economic exploitation but systems designed to deform human consciousness itself.

“Domination becomes easiest when oppressed people begin directing their anger against one another instead of against systems of power.

“Workers are encouraged to compete against workers, Africans against Africans, migrants against citizens, men against women and poor communities against one another, while financial elites and multinational corporations continue consolidating wealth and power on a grand scale.”

Malema stated that this contradiction was most visible in Africa, where the continent’s immense natural wealth continues to exist with widespread poverty.

“Africa remains inserted into the global economy primarily as a supplier of cheap labour, raw materials, and an extraction opportunity for international markets. That warning remains profoundly relevant because many post-colonial states continue operating within economic frameworks fundamentally designed to preserve external dependency and domestic class inequality.”

He said it was common cause that the African political elite often inherited the state but not the economy, and in many cases sections of that elite eventually integrated themselves into global systems of capitalist accumulation rather than transforming them.

The EFF has condemned the Helen Suzman Foundation’s (HSF) legal case against party leader Julius Malema, describing it as “politically motivated”. The foundation has reportedly launched an application in the Western Cape High Court seeking to challenge Malema’s participation in the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). In its court papers, the HSF argued that parliament has a constitutional duty to determine whether Malema is fit and proper to serve on the JSC, citing his conduct and past comments regarding certain judicial decisions. “This application is a dangerous and dishonest attempt to redefine democratic criticism as constitutional misconduct,” said EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo. He added that the excuse of removing a member of parliament from the JSC based on their views about judges and judicial outcomes is anti-democratic and seeks to impose a culture of silence. Malema is one of six MPs representing parliament on the JSC. During the commission’s public interviews for judicial office, Malema has frequently subjected interviewees to tough, often confrontational questioning. He has also constantly criticised the South African judiciary. After his recent firearm conviction, Malema publicly attacked magistrate Twanet Olivier, labelling her “racist” and “incompetent”. However, the EFF maintained that criticising the judiciary is a constitutionally protected right. “The EFF rejects the myth that the judiciary exists above criticism. In any constitutional democracy worthy of the name, criticism of the judiciary is protected under freedom of expression and forms part of necessary democratic accountability. “Judges are not beyond scrutiny, particularly in a society where the judiciary has increasingly become a site of political contestation, selective morality and inconsistency in the application of justice.” The red berets further argued that the lawsuit comes at a time when judicial institutions are avoiding accountability. Drawing a comparison to President Cyril Ramaphosa’s Phala Phala scandal, the EFF accused the foundation of hypocrisy and having double standards. “Throughout this scandal, the Helen Suzman Foundation maintained a deafening silence. They did not rush to court demanding accountability from Ramaphosa. They did not question the integrity of institutions that shielded him. They did not express concern when parliament was manipulated to suppress impeachment proceedings.” The party also accused the foundation of institutional overreach, claiming it is attempting to use the lawsuit to fundamentally redesign the framework governing the JSC. “This is an alarming example of institutional overreach by an unelected liberal pressure group seeking to use the courts to fundamentally reshape constitutional bodies according to its own ideological preferences. “The Helen Suzman Foundation is effectively inviting the judiciary to assume powers that belong to parliament and democratic political processes, while simultaneously claiming to defend the constitutional separation of powers.” The EFF said it would not be silenced. “The EFF will not be intimidated by court applications sponsored by liberal pressure groups acting in defence of political and economic elites. We will continue to expose corruption, challenge judicial inconsistency and defend the constitutional right of South Africans to speak openly and critically about all institutions of power, including the judiciary itself.” TimesLIVE

“The majority acquired political rights without corresponding economic power, and therefore the promises associated with liberation became increasingly difficult to sustain materially because democracy without economic transformation leads to disillusionment.”

The conference continues at Birchwood Hotel and Conference Centre this weekend, where various leaders of political formations will make addresses and engage in commissions.

The gathering will conclude on Sunday with the adoption and declaration of resolutions on the council of the left.

TimesLIVE