South Africa

It’s been 50 years since “Jaws” ruined that summer, spawning a fleet of increasingly dreadful sequels and knockoffs, turning a simple fish into a movie monster, and a dozen since “Sharknado” turned the monster into a joke. Sharks had been swimming in the culture before that, to be sure, often with the prefix “man-eating” appended, though men eat sharks too, and way more often — so who’s the real apex predator? And even though they are not as naturally cute as our cousins the dolphins and whales — I have never heard of one balancing a ball on its nose — they have also been made adorable as plush toys and cartoon characters.

“All the Sharks,” premiering Friday on Netflix, is a competition show in which four teams of two vie to photograph the most, and the most different, species of sharks, across two eight-hour days, and are set loose in the waters off Japan, the Maldives, South Africa, Australia, the Bahamas and the Galapagos Islands. And, brother, are there a lot of varieties — hammerhead shark, walking shark, whale shark, tawny nurse shark, pajama shark, pelagic thresher, tiger shark, tasselled wobbegong shark, puffadder shy shark, baby shark, mommy shark and daddy shark, to name but a few. (There are 124 species of sharks in Japanese waters, we’re told, and 200 off South Africa.) Points are awarded according to the rarity or abundance of the species in each location. These sharks are neither monsters nor jokes, though at least one contestant finds the banded houndshark “freaking adorable … their little cat eyes, their subterminal mouth.”

As competitions go, it is friendly, like “The Great British Baking Show” or “MasterChef Junior.” There’s no way to sabotage your opponents, no strategy past guessing where the sharks might be running, eating or hanging out. The purse — $50,000 — goes to the winners’ chosen marine charity, though prizes are also awarded to the top-scoring team in each episode. (Cool gear, seaside vacations.) Winning is not so much the point as just staying in as long as possible — because it’s fun. Sometimes things don’t go a team’s way, but no one has a bad attitude.

“All the Sharks” is hosted by Tom “The Blowfish” Hird, far left. The competitors are Randy Thomas, Rosie Moore, Aliah Banchik, MJ Algarra, Dan Abbott, Sarah Roberts, Brendan Talwar and Chris Malinowski.

(Netflix)

Naturally they are good-looking, because this is television, and fit, because you need to be to do this; most have professional expertise in fishy, watery or wild things. (They certainly know their sharks.) Brendan (marine biologist) and Chris (fisheries ecologist) are a team called the Shark Docs. Aliah (marine biologist specializing in stingrays — which are closely related to sharks, did you know?) and MJ, identified as an avid spearfisher and shark diver, comprise Gills Gone Wild; they met at a “bikini beach cleanup” and have been besties ever since. British Bait Off are Sarah (environmental journalist) and Dan (underwater cameraman), who like a cup of tea. And finally, there are the Land Sharks, Randy and Rosie. Dreadlocked Randy, a wildlife biologist, says, “I was always one of the only Black guys in my classes … I got that all the time: ‘Oh, you’re doing that white boy stuff’ and it’s just like, ‘No, I’m doing stuff that I love.’” Rosie, an ecologist who specializes in apex predators, wants to show girls it’s “OK to be badass … work with these crazy animals, get down and dirty.” She can hold her breath for five minutes.

The show has been produced with the usual tics of the genre: comments presented in the present tense that could only have been taped later; dramatic music and editing; the “hey ho uh-oh” narrative framing of big, loud host Tom “The Blowfish” Hird, with his braided pirate’s beard, whose website identifies him as a “heavy metal marine biologist.” Footage of great white sharks — the variety “Jaws” made famous — is inserted for the thrill factor, but none are coming.

But whatever massaging has been applied, “All the Sharks” is real enough. The contestants deal with rough seas, strong currents, jellyfish and sundry venomous creatures, intruding fishermen, limited air, sinus crises, variable visibility and unexpected orcas. And the sharks — who do not seem particularly interested in the humans, as there is no lack of familiar lunch options — do sometimes arrive in great, unsettling profusion. (There’s a reason “shark-infested waters” became a phrase.) Meanwhile, the ocean itself plays its ungovernable part. In their enveloping blueness, dotted with colorful fish and coral reefs, the undersea scenes are, in fact, quite meditative. (Humans move slow down there.) Someone describes it as like being inside a screen saver.

In the bargain, we learn not a little bit about shark behavior and biology, and there is an implicit, sometimes explicit, conservation theme. Each encountered species gets a graphic describing not only its length, weight and lifespan but the degree to which it is or isn’t endangered — and, sad to say, many are.

Describing Israel and Iran fighting each other at his NATO pre-summit news conference in The Hague this week, US President Donald Trump drew an analogy with children fighting in a schoolyard, who eventually had to be separated.

“Daddy has to sometimes use strong language,” Mark Rutte, NATO secretary-general, chimed in.

Asked about the comment after the summit, Trump said: “No, he likes me. I think he likes me. If he doesn’t I’ll let you know. I’ll come back and hit him hard, OK? He did it very affectionately. Hey Daddy. You’re my Daddy.”

The White House decided Rutte was flattering the US president, and made a reel of Trump’s visit to the Netherlands, set to the music of Usher’s Hey Daddy.

Rutte’s flattery of Trump didn’t stop there. On tackling the Russia-Ukraine war, Rutte told reporters before the NATO summit: “When he came in office, he started the dialogue with President Putin, and I always thought that was crucial. And there’s only one leader who could break the deadlock originally, and it had to be the American president, because he is the most powerful leader in the world.”

But how sincere are world leaders’ statements about Donald Trump? Do they genuinely serve to improve bilateral relations and does flattery work?

Who has handled Trump well and what have the results been?

Neither Rutte, nor any other European leader, engaged in any kind of dialogue with Russian President Vladimir Putin for a long time after the summer of 2022, the year of his invasion of Ukraine, believing it pointless.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was severely criticised as “defeatist” for phoning Putin last November, while Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, the only European leaders to have visited the Kremlin during the war, have been viewed as openly collaborationist.

Yet when Trump started talks with Putin, many Europeans paid him the same compliment as Rutte when they made their inaugural visits to the White House after he took office in January.

Keir Starmer, UK

“Thank you for changing the conversation to bring about the possibility that now we can have a peace deal, and we will work with you,” said the United Kingdom’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, in the Oval Office in February.

Starmer pulled a few rabbits out of hats. Knowing Trump’s fondness for the notion of hereditary power, he drew from his jacket a letter from King Charles III containing an invitation for an unprecedented second state visit to Windsor Castle.

Trump was momentarily speechless. “Your country is a fantastic country, and it will be our honour to be there, thank you,” Trump said when he’d gathered himself.

Starmer and Trump exchanged a few handshakes while speaking and Starmer repeatedly touched Trump’s shoulder in a sign of affection.

But did all this flattery have much effect? Trump announced he was freezing military aid to Ukraine the following month, much to the outrage of the UK, along with Nordic and Baltic countries.

Giorgia Meloni, Italy

Both Starmer and Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, identified Ukraine as a key issue for Trump, who has made it clear he wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize by ending international conflicts. So far, he has claimed credit for ending this month’s “12-Day War” between Israel and Iran, preventing nuclear war following the May 7 air battle between India and Pakistan, and overseeing a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda.

Meloni, therefore, tried a similarly flattering approach to Trump. “Together we have been defending the freedom of Ukraine. Together we can build a just and lasting peace. We support your efforts, Donald,” she said during her White House visit in April.

Meloni astutely punched all of Trump’s hot-button issues in her opening remarks, saying Italy had policies to combat Fentanyl, an addictive painkiller that Trump has blamed Canada and Mexico for allowing into the country, to invest $10bn in the US economy and to control undocumented immigration.

She even adapted Trump’s slogan, Make America Great Again, to Europe. “The goal for me is to Make the West Great Again. I think we can do it together,” Meloni said to a beaming Trump.

None of this has translated into a state visit by Trump to Rome, a move which would cement Meloni’s position as a major European leader, however.

Mark Carney, Canada

Meanwhile, newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was both flattering and firm with Trump last month. He complimented Trump on being “a transformational president” who had sided “with the American worker”, but also shut down Trump’s territorial ambition to annex Canada as the 51st US state. “It’s not for sale, won’t be for sale ever,” Mark Carney said.

Relations seemed to have taken a turn for the better following Trump’s friction with Carney’s predecessor, Justin Trudeau. Trump called him “very dishonest and weak” at the 2018 G7 summit in Canada before storming off early.

But Carney may not have had much effect at all. On Friday, Trump ended trade talks with Canada and threatened to impose additional tariffs on exports over Canada’s new digital services tax.

Which meetings have gone less well?

Emmanuel Macron, France

There was little warmth in Trump’s White House meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron in February.

Braced for confrontation with a leader who claims to lead Europe in strategic thought, Trump spoke from lengthy, defensive, scripted remarks which attempted to justify his Ukraine policy.

Macron preached that peace in Ukraine must not mean surrender – a sentiment shared by many European leaders, but not expressed to Trump. Trump was cordial with Macron, but not affectionate.

Meanwhile, France is holding out on any sort of capitulation to Trump in European Union trade talks. Other members of the EU want to settle for an “asymmetric” trade deal that might benefit the US more than the EU, just to get it done.

What’s more, following the G7 meeting in Canada two weeks ago, it was clear no love was lost between the two leaders: Trump called Macron “publicity seeking” in a social media post on June 17.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was mauled by Trump and Vice President J D Vance on February 28, when he went to the White House to sign a mineral rights agreement he hoped would bring US military aid.

He and Vance clashed over direct talks with Russia over Ukraine’s head, and Vance lambasted Zelenskyy for failing to show enough “gratitude” to the US.

“You’re playing with millions of people’s lives. You’re gambling with World War Three,” said Trump.

However, Zelenskyy and Trump appeared to have patched things up a little when they held an impromptu meeting while attending the funeral of Pope Francis at the Vatican in April. A White House spokesperson described the encounter as “very productive”.

Cyril Ramaphosa, South Africa

Last month, Trump ambushed South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House when he played him a video of a South African opposition party rally in favour of evicting white farmers. Trump accused South Africa of carrying out a “genocide” against white farmers.

Ramaphosa was visibly discomfited, but he patiently explained that under a parliamentary system, different viewpoints are expressed, which don’t represent government policy, and that South Africa is a violent country where most victims of violence are Black.

“You are a partner of South Africa and as a partner you are raising concerns which we are willing to talk to you about,” Ramaphosa said, calming Trump a little.

Trump was sidetracked into talking about a Jumbo Jet that Qatar had gifted him during his Middle Eastern tour. “I’m sorry I don’t have a plane to give you,” said Ramaphosa, as if to make a virtue of his absence of flattery.

Does flattery work with Trump?

Some experts believe that flattery may help to prevent confrontation with Trump. Some observers have argued it helps “to contain the American president’s impulses”.

But flattery does little to change actual US policy. Rutte and other NATO leaders failed to draw the US back into the Contact Group helping Ukraine with weapons.

“A summit dedicated to the sole aim of making Trump feel good is one with very limited aims indeed. All it does is push the difficult decisions forward for another day,” wrote Andrew Gawthorpe, a lecturer in history and international studies at Leiden University, the Netherlands, in The Conversation, a UK publication.

Those who do have good relations with Trump don’t necessarily come away with the things they want, either. Starmer’s US-UK trade deal keeps tariffs in place for British companies exporting to the US, albeit lower ones than Trump had been threatening. Meloni is still waiting for Trump to bestow her a visit.

Respectful firmness, on the other hand, does seem to work.

Trump has dropped his campaign to redraw US borders by absorbing Canada and Greenland, which is owned by Denmark. Carney’s firmness helped, because it carried a sense of finality. Carney had just won an election and Trump acknowledged “it was probably one of the greatest comebacks in the history of politics. Maybe even greater than mine.”

Denmark has been similarly firm. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said existing agreements with the US already allow it to station military bases there, while Greenlanders don’t want to be colonised by Americans.

Trump’s attempts to embarrass Zelenskyy and Ramaphosa also backfired. Europe has stepped in to make up the shortfall in US military aid to Ukraine, casting the US as a fickle ally. Trump’s “white genocide” video did little to convince Americans that South Africa was committing a genocide against Dutch Boers, and his offer of asylum to a number of them has been roundly criticised in the US.

Johannesburg, South Africa – On the night of June 27, 1985 in South Africa, four Black men were travelling together in a car from the southeastern city of Port Elizabeth, now Gqeberha, to Cradock.

They had just finished doing community organising work on the outskirts of the city when apartheid police officials stopped them at a roadblock.

The four – teachers Fort Calata, 29, and Matthew Goniwe, 38; school principal Sicelo Mhlauli, 36; and railway worker Sparrow Mkonto, 34 – were abducted and tortured.

Later, their bodies were found dumped in different parts of the city – they had been badly beaten, stabbed and burned.

The police and apartheid government initially denied any involvement in the killings. However, it was known that the men were being surveilled for their activism against the gruelling conditions facing Black South Africans at the time.

Soon after, evidence of a death warrant that had been issued for some members of the group was anonymously leaked, and later, it emerged that their killings had long been planned.

Though there were two inquests into the murders – both under the apartheid regime in 1987 and 1993 – neither resulted in any perpetrator being named or charged.

“The first inquest was conducted entirely in Afrikaans,” Lukhanyo Calata, Ford Calata’s son, told Al Jazeera earlier this month. “My mother and the other mothers were never offered any opportunity in any way whatsoever to make statements in that,” the 43-year-old lamented.

“These were courts in apartheid South Africa. It was a completely different time where it was clear that four people were murdered, but the courts said no one could be blamed for that.”

Soon after apartheid ended in 1994, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up. There, hearings confirmed the “Cradock Four” were indeed targeted for their political activism. Although a few former apartheid officers confessed to being involved, they would not disclose the details and were denied amnesty.

Now, four decades after the killings, a new inquest has begun. Although justice has never seemed closer, for families of the deceased, it has been a long wait.

“For 40 years, we’ve waited for justice,” Lukhanyo told local media this week. “We hope this process will finally expose who gave the orders, who carried them out, and why,” he said outside the court in Gqeberha, where the hearings are taking place.

As a South African journalist, it’s almost impossible to cover the inquiry without thinking about the extent of crimes committed during apartheid – crimes by a regime so committed to propping up its criminal, racist agenda that it took it to its most violent and deadly end.

There are many more stories like Calata’s, many more victims like the Cradock Four, and many more families still waiting to hear the truth of what happened to their loved ones.

Known victims

Attending the court proceedings in Gqeberha and watching the families reminded me of Nokhutula Simelane.

More than 10 years ago, I travelled to Bethal in the Mpumalanga province to speak with her family about her disappearance in 1983. Simelane joined Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), which was the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC) – the liberation movement turned majority ruling party in South Africa.

As an MK operative, she worked as a courier taking messages and parcels between South Africa and what was then Swaziland.

Simelane was lured to a meeting in Johannesburg and it was from there that she was kidnapped and held in police custody, tortured and disappeared.

Her family says they still feel the pain of not being able to bury her.

At the TRC, five white men from what was the special branch of the apartheid police, applied for amnesty related to Simelane’s abduction and presumed murder.

Former police commander Willem Coetzee, who headed the security police unit, denied ordering her killing. But that was countered by testimony from his colleague that she was brutally murdered and buried somewhere in what is now the North West province. Coetzee previously said Simelane was turned into an informant and was sent back to Swaziland.

Until now, no one has taken responsibility for her disappearance – not the apartheid security forces nor the ANC.

The case of the Cradock Four also made me think of anti-apartheid activist and South African Communist Party member, Ahmed Timol, who was tortured and killed in 1971 but whose murder was also covered up.

Apartheid police said the 29-year-old teacher fell out of a 10th-floor window at the notorious John Vorster Square police headquarters in Johannesburg, where he was being held. An inquest the following year concluded he had died by suicide, at a time when the apartheid government was known for its lies and cover-ups.

Decades later, a second inquest under the democratic government in 2018 found that Timol had been so badly tortured in custody that he would never have been able to jump out of a window.

It was only then that former security branch officer Joao Rodrigues was formally charged with Timol’s murder. The elderly Rodrigues rejected the charges and applied for a permanent stay of prosecution, saying he would not receive a fair trial because he was unable to properly recall events at the time of Timol’s death, given the number of years that have passed. Rodrigues died in 2021.

‘A crime against his humanity’

Apartheid was brutal. And for the people left behind, unresolved trauma and unanswered questions are the salt in the deep wounds that remain.

Which is why families like those of the Cradock Four are still at the courts, seeking answers.

In her testimony before the court this month, 73-year-old Nombuyiselo Mhlauli, wife of Sicelo Mhlauli, described the state of her husband’s body when she received his remains for burial. He had more than 25 stab wounds in the chest, seven in the back, a gash across his throat and a missing right hand, she said.

I spoke to Lukhanyo a day before he returned to court to continue his testimony in the hearing for his father’s killing.

He talked about how emotionally draining the process had been – yet vital. He also spoke about his work as a journalist, growing up without a father, and the impact it’s had on his life and outlook.

“There were crimes committed against our humanity. If you look at the state in which my father’s body was found, that was a clear crime against his humanity, completely,” Lukhanyo testified on the sixth day of the inquest.

But his frustration and anger do not end with the apartheid government. He holds the ANC, which has been in power since the end of apartheid, partly responsible for taking too long to adequately address these crimes.

Lukhanyo believes the ANC betrayed the Cradock Four, and this betrayal “cut the deepest”.

“Today we are sitting with a society that is completely lawless,” he said in court. “[This is] because at the start of this democracy, we did not put in the proper processes to tell the rest of society that you will be held accountable for things that you have done wrong.”

Fort Calata’s grandfather, the Reverend Canon James Arthur Calata, was the secretary-general of the ANC from 1939 to 1949. The Calata family has a long history with the liberation movement, which makes it all the more difficult for someone like Lukhanyo to understand why it’s taken the party so long to deliver justice.

Seeking accountability and peace

The office of South Africa’s Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Mmamoloko Kubayi, says the department has intensified its efforts to deliver long-awaited justice and closure for families affected by apartheid-era atrocities.

“These efforts signal a renewed commitment to restorative justice and national healing,” the department said in a statement.

The murders of the Cradock Four, Simelane and Timol are among the horrors and stories we know about.

But I often wonder about all the names, victims and testimonies that remain hidden or buried.

The murders of countless mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters by the apartheid regime matter not only to those who cared for them but for the consciousness of South African society as a whole, no matter how normalised the tally of the dead has become.

It’s not clear how long this new inquest will take. It is expected to last several weeks, with former security police, political figures and forensic experts testifying.

Initially, six police officers were implicated in the killings. They have all since died, but family members of the Cradock Four say senior officials who gave the orders should be held responsible.

The state, however, is reluctant to pay the legal costs of apartheid police officers implicated in the murders, and that may slow down the process.

Meanwhile, as the families wait for answers about what happened to their loved ones and accountability for those responsible, they are trying to make peace with the past.

“I’ve been on my own, trying to bring up children – fatherless children,” Nombuyiselo told Al Jazeera outside the court about the years since her husband Sicelo’s death. “The last 40 years have been very difficult for me – emotionally, and also spiritually.”

South Africa’s foreign policy has traditionally rested on three pillars: human rights advocacy, multilateralism, and solidarity with the Global South. Post-apartheid, Pretoria positioned itself as a mediator in global conflicts, a champion of African interests, and a voice against imperialism. However, under Ramaphosa’s administration, this identity appears blurred. The guiding principles remain on paper, but in practice, foreign policy decisions often seem reactive, inconsistent, and vulnerable to internal political pressures. This disconnect between ideals and implementation is where the cracks begin to show.

South Africa’s foreign policy under President Cyril Ramaphosa presents a contradictory and increasingly incoherent landscape. While the country once proudly stood on the global stage as a principled voice of moral authority, particularly in the post-apartheid era, recent trends reveal a foreign policy marred by inconsistency, political improvisation, and a diminishing institutional role for the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO). These developments expose both the fine cracks and widening chasms in South Africa’s diplomatic posture.

South Africa’s position on the Israel-Palestine conflict has been one of its most vocal and consistent foreign policy markers in recent years. Ramaphosa’s government has taken a firm stance in condemning Israeli actions in Gaza, even leading the charge at the International Court of Justice to accuse Israel of genocide. This has resonated with domestic constituencies, particularly those with historical sympathies for the Palestinian cause. However, critics argue that this moral clarity is selectively applied. South Africa’s silence or caution on atrocities in other regions, such as Xinjiang and the Tigray conflict, undermines the moral authority it seeks to project to the world.

Another troubling issue has been South Africa’s muted and inconsistent response to international propaganda regarding so-called “white genocide” or the “murder of white farmers.” This narrative, often amplified by far-right groups abroad, misrepresents rural crime in South Africa and distorts complex socio-economic realities for political gain. Yet, Ramaphosa’s administration has not proactively countered these claims with a sustained international communication strategy. The absence of a clear and robust rebuttal not only damages the country’s image but also allows disinformation to fester in influential circles abroad.

A more subtle but revealing fault line lies in how foreign policy is shaped to accommodate powerful economic actors. South Africa’s reported willingness to bend B-BBEE (Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment) rules to allow Elon Musk’s Starlink to operate raises deeper questions. On the one hand, there is an understandable desire to expand connectivity and embrace digital innovation. On the other, such decisions appear to signal that policy can be suspended or softened when big business is involved. This flexibility undermines the credibility of domestic policy frameworks and opens South Africa up to accusations of inconsistency or even opportunism.

The Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), once a hub of strategic thinking and diplomacy, now seems increasingly peripheral. Under Ramaphosa, DIRCO has struggled to assert itself as the authoritative voice on foreign policy. The lack of clarity in positions, delays in diplomatic appointments, and an overall sense of drift reflect a department in decline. This vacuum has created space for a troubling trend: the proliferation of unofficial and undisciplined commentary on foreign policy matters by ANC leaders such as Fikile Mbalula, whose portfolio is far-fetched from foreign policy.

In recent years, it has become common for various ANC figures, some holding no official position in international affairs, to make bold and, at times, incendiary statements on global matters. Whether it’s views on BRICS, Russia’s war in Ukraine, or Israel-Palestine, these statements often contradict each other or official government policy. This free-for-all has consequences. It undermines diplomatic coherence, confuses international partners, and erodes confidence in Pretoria’s reliability as a global actor.

At best, South Africa’s current foreign policy could be described as fragmented realism wrapped in rhetorical idealism. At worst, it is ad hoc, domestically driven, and lacking a unifying vision. It is unclear whether Ramaphosa’s government is intentionally pursuing a flexible and pragmatic foreign policy or whether it is simply reacting to events without a strong guiding compass. The blurred lines between party, government, and department make it difficult to distinguish strategic priorities from political expediency.

If South Africa hopes to retain its voice on the international stage, it must begin by consolidating its foreign policy machinery. DIRCO must be empowered, not sidelined. Policy statements must be consistent, not contradictory. Foreign engagement must be principled, not selectively moralistic or economically opportunistic. The world is watching South Africa’s foreign policy circles with keen interest; it is confused by what it sees. The time to fix these cracks, both fine and foundational, is now.

South Africa cannot afford to be a bystander amid the seismic shifts shaping global politics. In an era marked by rising geopolitical tensions, great power rivalries, and contested norms, a passive or ambiguous foreign policy amounts to self-marginalization. South Africa’s historical legacy as a nation that transitioned from apartheid through global solidarity and principled diplomacy demands that it play a more assertive role in international affairs.

A firm, values-based stance in global politics not only reaffirms South Africa’s own agency but also sets a precedent for the African continent. Africa, often treated as a passive recipient of global outcomes, needs bold leadership among its middle powers. By taking principled and consistent positions on international issues from human rights to economic justice, South Africa can embolden its neighbors to speak with greater unity and confidence on the global stage.

In this context, South Africa’s role is not just national—it is continental. A coherent and courageous foreign policy can catalyze a broader African voice in global governance, helping to redefine Africa’s place not as a bargaining chip in great power politics, but as a serious actor in shaping a fairer, more multipolar world order.

‘What happens to a dream deferred, Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun’? Langston Hughes’ haunting question is beginning to echo uncomfortably in the political lifeline of Floyd Shivambu. Once a fierce and eloquent voice in Parliament’s red berets, today Shivambu finds himself marginalized, demoted to the political backbenches of the newly formed MK Party (MKP). A career that once burned with promise now flickers in uncertainty.

Was his fall from political prominence an accident, or was it engineered?. From the commanding front benches of the EFF to the shadows of the MKP, Shivambu’s descent raises critical questions. Was his departure from the EFF a genuine political realignment, or a cleverly orchestrated move to destabilize Julius Malema’s party by luring away one of its sharpest minds? Could this have been a strategic masterstroke by the likes of Jacob Zuma, a political chess player known for his ability to manipulate alliances and rivalries to his advantage?

If Shivambu was poached, it was certainly not for a promotion. Within months of joining MKP, he appears to have been politically neutered. Public disputes, such as the reported spat with Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, Jacob Zuma’s daughter, have only added fuel to speculation that Shivambu was never meant to flourish in MKP, only to falter. Was he simply unaware of the unwritten rule that MKP is less a political party and more a Zuma family affair?

Some argue that this was less about strategy and more about power consolidation, not just weakening the EFF, but silencing an independent voice that could challenge the growing cult of personality around the Zuma’s within MKP. In that reading, Shivambu was not just collateral damage, he was the target.

Progressive Forces Eating Their Own? This unfolding saga raises disturbing questions about the nature of South Africa’s so-called progressive forces. How did a movement born from struggle and revolution devolve into petty factionalism and guerrilla-style politics against its own members? While the Democratic Alliance continues to mount a serious opposition to transformative policies, those who once stood together for economic emancipation are now sniping at each other from inside their trenches. It’s not just a tragedy for Shivambu. It’s a betrayal of the broader transformation agenda. Politically, Shivambu faces a daunting crossroads. The MKP seems to be squeezing him out. A return to the EFF is unlikely, not least because of the silence, or strategic distancing by Julius Malema and senior EFF leaders regarding Shivambu’s current woes. Their silence may be a political statement in itself. Or perhaps, they saw it coming.

Shivambu’s options appear limited. He could attempt to reinvent himself as an independent political voice, but without a party infrastructure or public platform, the road is steep. Alternatively, he might pivot to civil society, academia, or media spaces where his intellect and experience could still influence discourse. But make no mistake, the days of legislative thunder from the EFF’s deputy president may be behind him.

Political commentators like Tshidi Madia of Eyewitness News and others have noted the oddity of Shivambu’s muted role within MKP. Once celebrated for his incisive critiques and command of policy detail, he is now a near-invisible figure in a party defined by populist rhetoric and internal power dynamics. Madia and others suggest this was less an ideological shift and more a miscalculation on Shivambu’s part, one that may cost him his political future.

MKP’s Blind Spot In its apparent mission to sideline Shivambu reveals its own weaknesses. A political movement that cannot tolerate internal diversity or accommodate experienced leadership may soon find itself irrelevant. The very act of ejecting those with independent thought betrays a deeper insecurity  and an inability to transform from a personality cult into a credible political force. Floyd Shivambu may not have been perfect, very few in politics are but his marginalization marks more than just a personal tragedy. It reflects a broader crisis in South African progressive politics, a moment when internal rivalries and unchecked egos are dismantling movements from within. If a figure as pivotal and principled as Shivambu can be cast aside so easily, what hope is there for unity, let alone transformation?

In the end, Hughes’ poem lingers: “Or does it explode?” Time will tell whether Shivambu’s deferred dream leads to a rebirth, or the quiet explosion of a once-promising career. The biggest takeaway from the Shivambu-MKP debacle is the deepening disunity among parties that claim to represent the economically marginalized and working-class majority. Rather than building a unified front against inequality and state capture by elite interests, progressive parties are cannibalizing each other.

 By 2026, South Africa is likely to experience more splinters and splinter parties formed from fallouts within MKP and EFF. Weaker coordination at municipal and ward levels, especially in metros like Johannesburg, Ekurhuleni, and eThekwini. Increased voter confusion as ideological lines blur between former comrades turned competitors. The 2026 local elections could be a watershed moment not because of who wins outright, but because it will reflect whether progressive politics in South Africa can regroup or whether it has entered a cycle of permanent fragmentation. Unless bold leadership emerges to build bridges, articulate a unifying agenda, and restore public trust, the progressive forces risk becoming irrelevant spectators in the very struggle they once led.

On May 25, Olorato Mongale, a 30-year-old woman from South Africa, went on a date with a man she had recently met.

Less than two hours later, she was dead.

Her half-naked body was found by the roadside in Lombardy West, a suburb north of Johannesburg. It showed signs of severe trauma and bruising. Investigators concluded that she had been murdered elsewhere and dumped at the scene.

Her brutal and senseless killing led to a wave of grief and outrage on social media. Days later, a family spokesperson revealed that Mongale – a master’s student at the University of the Witwatersrand – had once worked as a journalist. She left the profession seven years ago due to the emotional toll of reporting on gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF).

Her family said Mongale had grown increasingly anxious about her own vulnerability to male violence. In particular, the 2017 murder of 22-year-old Karabo Mokoena haunted her. Mokoena was stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend, Sandile Mantsoe, who then burned her body beyond recognition and buried the remains in open grassland in Lyndhurst – a suburb just kilometres from where Mongale’s body was found.

Despite her conscious efforts to avoid Mokoena’s fate, Mongale ultimately became what she had feared most: another name added to the long and growing list of South African women murdered by men.

At her funeral on June 1, her mother, Keabetswe Mongale, said her daughter had tried desperately to fight off her attacker.

“When I saw her at the government mortuary, I could see that my daughter fought. She fought until her nails broke,” she said.

Her devastating death serves as a stark reminder that women and girls across South Africa continue to face an existential threat from gender-based violence, despite years of government promises and reforms.

On May 24, 2024, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed into law a bill establishing the National Council on Gender-Based Violence and Femicide. The body is mandated to provide leadership and coordination in the fight against GBVF. While it appeared to be a step forward, it did not represent a transformative policy shift.

This is not the first such initiative. In 2012, then-Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe launched the National Council Against Gender-Based Violence, with a similar mandate to coordinate national anti-GBV efforts.

More than a decade later, with yet another council in place, GBVF crimes continue.

In November 2023, the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) of South Africa released the country’s first national study on GBVF. It found that the persistence of gender-based violence is rooted in “deeply ingrained societal norms and structures that perpetuate male dominance and reinforce gender hierarchies … leading to female subordination, systemic inequalities, and violence against women”.

The destructive effect of entrenched patriarchy is undeniable. In South Africa, a woman is murdered every three hours. That is approximately 8 women a day. One study estimates that around 7.8 million women in the country have experienced physical or sexual violence.

While women of all races and backgrounds are affected, Black women face higher rates of GBVF – an enduring legacy of apartheid and its structural inequalities.

This crisis is not unique to South Africa. The terror faced by women and girls is a continent-wide phenomenon.

In November 2024, the United Nations published its report Femicides in 2023: Global Estimates of Intimate Partner/Family Member Femicides, revealing that Africa had the world’s highest rate of partner-related femicide that year.

Kenya stands out for its staggering figures.

Between September 2023 and December 2024, the country recorded more than 7,100 cases of sexual and gender-based violence. These included the murders of at least 100 women by male acquaintances, relatives, or intimate partners in just four months.

Among the victims was Rebecca Cheptegei, a Ugandan Olympian and mother of two, who competed in the marathon at the 2024 Paris Games. On September 5, 2024, she died in Eldoret, Kenya, from severe burns after her former partner doused her in petrol and set her alight during a domestic dispute. He himself later died in a hospital from his injuries.

The Kenyan government later recognised GBVF as the most pressing security challenge facing the country — a belated but crucial move.

On May 26, Kenya’s National Gender and Equality Commission noted that the surge in GBVF crimes was driven by “a complex interplay of cultural, social, economic, and legal factors”. Patriarchal traditions continue to fuel inequality and legitimise violence, while harmful practices such as forced marriage, female genital mutilation (FGM), and dowry-related violence further endanger women’s lives. Economic hardship and women’s financial dependence only deepen their vulnerability.

Across the continent, we are witnessing a dangerous resurgence of archaic patriarchal norms.

The COVID-19 lockdowns in 2020 further exposed the scale of the crisis. Since then, countless behavioural change campaigns have been launched, but they have largely failed.

This is no surprise.

According to Afrobarometer data from November 2023, nearly 48 percent of all Africans believe domestic violence is a private matter, not a criminal offence.

The uncomfortable truth is that many African men, regardless of education or economic status, do not prioritise the safety or rights of women and girls.

On International Women’s Day last year, South African rugby captain Siya Kolisi said it plainly: “Men are not doing enough.”

Indeed, many continue to uphold harmful customs such as child marriage and remain disengaged from efforts to protect women. Years of empty rhetoric have led to a growing body count.

It is time for African men to take full ownership of this crisis and commit to radical change.

They must reject cultural practices and ideals of manhood that dehumanise women. African cultures are not unchangeable, and patriarchy is not destiny. A new, egalitarian model of African masculinity must be nurtured — one based on dignity, equality, and nonviolence.

This cultural reorientation must begin in families and be sustained through schools, religious and traditional forums, and community life.

It must happen for Olarato Mongale. For Rebecca Cheptegei. For the thousands of others whose lives were stolen.

And most urgently, it must happen for the women and girls across Africa who live each day knowing that their greatest threat may come from the men closest to them.

There can be no just African future unless African manhood is transformed.

South Africa end their wait for one of the major ICC titles by beating Australia by five wickets in the WTC final.

South Africa have secured their first major title by beating defending champions Australia by five wickets in the final of the World Test Championship at Lord’s Cricket Ground in London.

The Proteas knocked off the remaining 29 runs they needed before lunch on Saturday – sealing the win with more than a day and a half to spare, and sparking emotional celebrations in front of a packed crowd.

They moved from a portentous 213-2 overnight to 282-5, the second-highest successful run chase in the 141-year Rest history at the self-proclaimed home of cricket.

Australia did not give up the WTC mace easily, relentlessly attacking the stumps and pressuring a South Africa side with an infamous history of blowing winning positions on big ICC stages.

But South Africa was staunch and composed, only three boundaries in more than two hours, and lost only three wickets on Saturday in an air of inevitability.

“We’ve come a long way as a team, as a country,” an emotional Keshav Maharaj said. “We always say we want to be good people and play good. We’re moving in the right direction as a cricketing nation.

Referencing South Africa’s last title of any kind, the 1998 ICC Champions Trophy, Maharaj fought back tears in adding, “After 27 years of pain, to finally get over the line is super emotional. We’re so grateful to have Temba (Bavuma, captain) to get us over the line.

“Diversity is our strength, so to see the crowd, they stand for the meaning of our rainbow nation. To lift the trophy is going to unite the nation even more.”

The desperate Australians used up all of their three reviews in vain within the first 90 minutes, but fought to the end. They took the new ball but were still blunted by a flat pitch.

Markram was the colossus Australia could not topple until it was too late.

The opener resumed the day on 102 and was out for 136 when only six more runs were needed. He spent six hours, 23 minutes in the middle.

About 15 minutes later, Kyle Verreynne broke the tension by hitting the winning run, a drive into the covers.

Markram and captain Temba Bavuma set up the victory with an unbeaten and chanceless partnership of 143 runs the day before. They could not finish what they started, adding only four runs together before Bavuma edged Pat Cummins behind for 66, one more than he had overnight.

Tristan Stubbs was castled on 8 by Mitchell Starc with 41 runs needed and South Africa was too close to the finish to be denied.

But Markram could not have the pleasure himself. With six runs needed to win, he was caught at midwicket by Travis Head off Josh Hazlewood.

Australia did not celebrate. Instead, players slapped Markram on the back and congratulated him on his match-winning knock as the Lord’s crowd stood and applauded.

They stood again when the end finally came, a rout of red-hot Australia with five sessions to spare.

South Africa’s history on the ICC’s biggest stages has been infamously cruel. The venues and dates of their most heart-breaking losses include Birmingham 1999, Dhaka 2011, Auckland 2015, Kolkata 2023 and Bridgetown 2024.

But London 2025 will go down as one of the greatest days in South African sport, when its cricket underdogs grabbed the advantage and did not let go against one of the great Australia Test sides to seal the title that ranks alongside the ICC’s Cricket World Cup and the T20 World Cup.

South Africa were criticised before the final for its supposedly easier road — it did not face Australia or England in a series in the 2023-2025 WTC cycle — but it has won eight straight tests, its second-longest streak in history, and half of them away from home.

Hobbling captain Temba Bavuma and hundred-hitter Aiden Markram pushed South Africa to the brink of a sensational victory over Australia in a gripping World Test Championship final at Lord’s Cricket Ground in London.

Bavuma, elevating the drama with a strained left hamstring, and opener Markram capitalised on ideal batting conditions on Friday.

They partnered for an unbroken 143 runs against one of Australia’s greatest bowling attacks to have South Africa 69 runs from an historic triumph.

Chasing 282 to win, the Proteas were 213-2 at stumps on Day Three in a stirring bid to win a first ICC trophy in 27 years.

Bavuma was 65 not out from 121 balls, his running restricted but not his batting technique, and Markram was 102 not out from 159, easily the highest individual score of the final.

Defending champion Australia bombarded them with four of its top-10 all-time test wicket-takers – more than 1,500 wickets in total – but they were not able to part the Proteas pair, and hardly troubled them.

In South Africa’s huge favour, the Day Three pitch flattened, offered the bowlers little and was far easier paced than the first two chaotic days, when 14 wickets fell on each. Only four wickets were taken on Friday, and none after tea.

South Africa will not go to bed entirely comfortably, though. The men’s team has a heartbreaking history in ICC tournaments of blowing winning positions. It is the reason its only ICC trophy is the ICC Knock Out in 1998.

“This would be massive for our country,” Proteas batting coach Ashwell Prince said. “Both in terms of what we want to do in test match cricket and what we want to achieve going forward. We’ve fallen short in some white-ball competitions with teams that have been favourites at times. History says we haven’t done it yet, so we have to knuckle down.

“Not sure how I’m going to sleep tonight. Whether I can fall into a deep sleep, I’m not sure!”

It is certain serial champion Australia still believes, too.

“In the morning, we’ve got to come back and try and form a plan,” Beau Webster said. “The boys will be looking at any advantage we can get. Strange things happen in this game.

“We tried some new things with the bowling attack, but they were just too good in the end … and both of them were chanceless, so complete credit to them.”

The odds were in Australia’s favour when South Africa’s chase began straight after lunch.

To win, a work-in-progress batting lineup needed to equal England’s most successful-ever run chase at Lord’s from 2004.

By the time pacer Mitchell Starc removed Ryan Rickelton and Wiaan Mulder, South Africa was 70-2, but flying.

There was positive intent missing from the first innings, and the strike was rotated constantly. Australia managed only three maidens in 56 overs, all by spinner Nathan Lyon.

Starc could have reduced South Africa to 76-3 when Bavuma, on 2, thick-edged to first slip.

But a helmeted Steve Smith, standing closer than usual to the wickets because the ball has not been carrying to the cordon all game, could not hold Starc’s 138 km/h delivery and broke his right pinkie finger. He immediately left for a hospital, was out of the final and probably the following three-test tour of the West Indies.

Given life, Bavuma was on 9 when he hurt his hamstring 10 minutes before tea. Prince said he was adamant about continuing, but noticeably limping. The captain soothed his dressing room with pulls and sweeps and hobbled runs, each one rousing the South Africa fans. Bavuma reached his 50 off 83 balls.

Meanwhile, Markram was cutting and driving to 50 off 69 balls. The best of his 11 boundaries was a late cut off Starc expertly sliced between two fielders. His reaction to his eighth test century five minutes from stumps was muted. He had enough strength to raise his bat to all sides and receive applause and a hug from his captain.

South Africa’s celebratory end to Friday the 13th contrasted starkly with the deflating start to the day.

The Proteas would have expected to begin the chase by bowling out Australia, resuming on 144-8, half an hour after the start of play. Lyon was dismissed early and gave Kagiso Rabada his ninth wicket of the match, but tailenders Starc and Josh Hazlewood resisted for almost two hours.

Starc achieved his 11th test fifty, and first in six years. He and Hazlewood’s third 50-plus partnership for the 10th wicket tied the all-time test record.

The stand ended on 59, Hazlewood out for 17 to part-timer Markram. Starc was not out on 58 from 136 balls. He had entered at 73-7, when Australia led by 147, and combined mainly with Alex Carey and Hazlewood to conjure 134 more runs.

Those runs and South Africa’s 20 no balls appeared to put Australia beyond reach. But Bavuma and Markram had the confidence and the pitch to defy nearly all expectations.

Kagiso Rabada was suspended from cricket only six weeks ago, midway through a stint in the Indian Premier League.

The South Africa seamer received a standing ovation from the crowd at Lord’s Cricket Ground in London on Wednesday.

The accolade was for Rabada starring in the World Test Championship final by taking 5-51 in 15.4 overs to help South Africa rout defending champion Australia for 212 on day one.

“You always felt on this wicket, any ball had their name on it,” he said.

The South Africans didn’t have it all their own way, however, as they were left reeling at 43-4 at the close.

Rabada grabbed the spotlight from the off, taking two wickets in the morning. The three wickets after tea also earned him personal milestones.

His third wicket of the day, bowling Australia captain Pat Cummins, tied him with Allan Donald on 330 wickets for fourth place on South Africa’s all-time Test list. The fourth wicket, Beau Webster, left Donald behind. The fifth wicket, Mitchell Starc, gave Rabada a five-for and a second inscription on the Lord’s honours boards.

Each time he finished bowling and returned to patrol the boundary, Rabada was applauded by the large contingent of South Africa fans.

“It feels like a home game,” he said. “I’m just happy I could do a job out there. All of us started really well, I just got the rewards today.”

It all went better than Rabada and South Africa expected after he tested positive for a recreational drug in January and admitted to it.

Rabada underwent education programmes that reduced his suspension from three months to a month – April – in the middle of his multimillion-dollar IPL contract.

The Proteas and Cricket South Africa hierarchy supported Rabada through the process and, after some criticism of the length of suspension, prepared him for any abuse during the WTC final.

If there was any, it was muted by his success.

Just before leaving South Africa for London to play in the final, he said of the suspension, “The biggest thing I took away from it is having gratitude for playing the game that we love. I’m just glad to be playing again.”

South Africa would say the same.

Australia batter Steve Smith, meantime, hopes the variable bounce at Lord’s will help them make further inroads into South Africa’s fragile batting lineup on day two.

Smith marked his first outing since March with 66 runs and felt Australia were in the driving seat after the opening day. Yet they were now looking to capitalise on their advantage.

“I think the bounce is going to be variable throughout the game, as we’ve seen already on day one, so hopefully we can get a few early wickets in the morning and sort of go through them and have a bit of a lead. That’s the ideal scenario for us right now.”

Australia are 169 runs ahead after a day in which 14 wickets fell.

“I think we’re in a good spot. We’ve probably had a few missed opportunities with the bat to try and get a bigger total, but I think the wicket offered something all day.

“We could have had a better day, but we’re still in a nice position,” Smith said after stumps on Wednesday.

Smith, a prolific run scorer at Lord’s, was returning after a lengthy holiday in which he said he hardly picked up a bat.

“I felt good, felt in a nice place. I love batting here at Lord’s and enjoyed my time while I was out there, but left a few in the shed, unfortunately.

“It felt quite tricky, the wicket felt like it was doing enough all day … probably a little bit on the slower side, and then one kind of zings through.”

Smith was irritated to have been dismissed by part-time spinner Aiden Markram, trying to slog him to the boundary but getting a healthy edge to slip.

“I’m still trying to fathom how I’ve done that,” he said.

Officials say death toll expected to rise as authorities launch search operation in the country’s Eastern Cape province.

At least 49 people have died in heavy flooding in South Africa’s Eastern Cape province after an extreme cold front brought torrential rain and blanketed snow in parts of the country, officials said.

Eastern Cape Premier Oscar Mabuyane said on Wednesday that the death toll, provided by police, is expected to rise as authorities continue to search for the missing.

“As we speak here, other bodies are being discovered,” Mabuyane told reporters at a briefing.

In one tragic incident, authorities reported the deaths of six high school students who were washed away on Tuesday when their school bus was caught in floodwaters near a river. Four other students were among the missing, Mabuyane said.

Authorities found the school bus earlier Wednesday, but it was empty. Three of the students were rescued on Tuesday when they were found clinging to trees, the provincial government said.

Disaster response teams have been activated in Eastern Cape province and the neighbouring KwaZulu-Natal province after torrential rain hit parts of southern and eastern South Africa over the weekend. Power outages have affected hundreds of thousands of homes, authorities said.

Eastern Cape officials said at least 58 schools and 20 hospitals were damaged by the floods. Approximately 500 people were taken to temporary shelters after their homes were washed away or damaged, they added.

“I have never seen something like this,” Mabuyane said.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa offered his condolences to the affected families in a statement. His office said South Africa’s National Disaster Management Centre was now working with local authorities in the Eastern Cape.

Weather forecasters had warned for days prior that an especially strong weather front was heading for the eastern and southern parts of South Africa, bringing damaging rains in some parts and snow in others.

A South African mother has been sentenced to life in prison for kidnapping and trafficking her six-year-old daughter, Joshlin Smith, who vanished over a year ago. A witness testified the child was sold to a traditional healer for $1,100.

JOHANNESBURG — Presley Chweneyagae, the South African actor who gained international recognition for his leading role in the 2005 film “Tsotsi,” which won South Africa’s first-ever Academy Award for best foreign language film, has died. He was 40 years old.

His talent agency MLA on Tuesday confirmed Chweneyagae’s death and said South Africa had lost one of its “most gifted and beloved actors.”

“His passion for empowering the next generation of artists will remain integral to his legacy,” MLA Chief Executive Nina Morris Lee said in a statement. She gave no details about the cause of death.

Chweneyagae’s three-decade-long career spanned theater, television and film.

His award-winning performance in “Tsotsi,” based on the 1961 novel by South Africa’s preeminent playwright Athol Fugard and directed by Gavin Hood, catapulted him to international stardom.

Chweneyagae was also a gifted writer and director, co-writing the internationally acclaimed stage play “Relativity” with Paul Grootboom.

The South African government paid tribute to Chweneyagae, lauding his outstanding contribution to the film, television and theater fraternity.

“The nation mourns the loss of a gifted storyteller whose talent lit up our screens and hearts,” the government said in a post on X. “Your legacy will live on through the powerful stories you told.”

The South Africa Film and Television Awards organization, known as SAFTA, paid tribute to Chweneyagae, calling him a “true legend of South African Cinema” on X.

“Rest in Power … a powerhouse performer whose talent left an indelible mark on our screens and in our hearts,” SAFTA posted.

The secretary general of the ANC, the party that dominated South African politics for 30 years, offered his condolences.

Fikile Mbalula described Chweneyagae as a “giant of South African film and theatre.”

“His legacy in ‘Tsotsi,’ ‘The River,’ and beyond will live on. Condolences to his family, friends, and all who were touched by his brilliance,” Mbalula said.

Gumede writes for the Associated Press.

STUDENTS in the South of England are nearly twice as likely to get three A* A-level grades than those in the North, data reveals.

Just 5,800 of the 258,000 who sat the exams last year came away with three or more top grades.

Of those, 3,779 were from the South and 2,021 in the North.

Nine out of ten of the best areas for A-levels were in the South. Pupils in reading, in Berks, came out top — with seven per cent hitting the highest grades.

Dozens in London suburbs Kingston, Newham, Sutton and Barnet also got top marks.

The Government stats show Salford, Gtr Manchester, fared the worst, with a single set of three A* grades.

Social mobility expert Professor Lee Elliot Major called it a national scandal, saying: “These figures lay bare a brutal truth — your chances of the highest academic success at school are still shaped more by where you live than what you’re capable of.

“This A-star divide highlights the vast differences in support offered to today’s children and young people both outside and inside the classroom.

“Increasingly A-level grades are as much a sign of how much support young people have had as much as their academic capability.

“This isn’t just a North-South education divide. It’s a London and South East versus the rest Divide.”

The Department for Education said: “We are taking measures to tackle baked-in inequalities.”

1

Mining company Sibanye-Stillwater says all workers are safe and have been provided with food as they await rescue.

Rescue efforts were under way in South Africa on Friday as more than 200 miners were trapped at a gold mine for a second day.

Mining company Sibanye-Stillwater said on Thursday that the miners were trapped after what it referred to as a “shaft incident” at the Kloof gold mine, one of the company’s deepest.

It said that all the workers were safe and gathered at an assembly point where they had been provided with food as efforts were being made to get them out.

“It was decided that employees should remain at the sub-shaft station until it is safe to proceed to the surface,” the company said.

The total number of workers trapped was not immediately clear. News agencies reported that 260 people were trapped, while a company spokesperson said 289 miners were in the shaft.

The National Union of Mineworkers, representing the workers at the Kloof mine, said they had been trapped for more than 24 hours as Sibanye-Stillwater continued pushing back its estimated time to retrieve the workers.

“We are very concerned because the mine did not even make this incident public until we reported it to the media,” said NUM spokesman Livhuwani Mammburu.

The mine, located 60km (37 miles) west of Johannesburg, is among a few collecting from some of the world’s deepest gold deposits.

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa met Donald Trump in a bid to reset US ties. But critics say he missed a key chance to counter Trump’s false ‘white genocide’ claims. Al Jazeera’s @FahmidaMiller reports on the mixed reaction from Johannesburg.

On May 21, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa stunned the world by announcing that his government had officially granted refugee status to 48 million African Americans. The decision, made through an executive order titled “Addressing the Egregious Actions and Extensive Failures of the US Government”, was unveiled at a news conference held in the tranquil gardens of the Union Buildings in Pretoria.

Poised and deliberate, Ramaphosa framed the announcement as a necessary and humane response to what he called “the absolute mayhem” engulfing the United States. Flanked by Maya Johnson, president of the African American Civil Liberties Association, and her deputy Patrick Miller, Ramaphosa declared that South Africa could no longer ignore the plight of a people “systematically impoverished, criminalised, and decimated by successive US governments”.

Citing a dramatic deterioration in civil liberties under President Donald Trump’s second term, Ramaphosa specifically pointed to the administration’s barrage of executive orders dismantling affirmative action, gutting DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives, and permitting federal contractors to discriminate freely. These measures, he said, are calculated to “strip African Americans of dignity, rights, and livelihood – and to make America white again”.

“This is not policy,” Ramaphosa said, “this is persecution.”

President Trump’s 2024 campaign was unabashed in its calls to “defend the homeland” from what it framed as internal threats – a barely veiled dog whistle for the reassertion of white political dominance. True to his word, Trump has unleashed what critics are calling a rollback not just of civil rights, but of civilisation itself.

Ramaphosa noted that under the guise of restoring law and order, the federal government has instituted what amounts to an authoritarian crackdown on Black political dissent. Since Trump’s inauguration in January, he said, hundreds of African American activists have been detained by security forces – often on dubious charges – and interrogated under inhumane conditions.

While Ramaphosa focused on systemic oppression, Johnson sounded the alarm on what she bluntly described as “genocide”.

“Black Americans are being hunted,” she told reporters. “Night after night, day after day, African Americans across the country are being attacked by white Americans. These criminals claim they are ‘reclaiming’ America. Police departments, far from intervening, are actively supporting these mobs – providing logistical aid, shielding them from prosecution, and joining in the carnage.”

The African American Civil Liberties Association estimates that in the past six weeks alone, thousands of African Americans have been threatened, assaulted, disappeared, or killed, she said.

The crisis has not gone unnoticed by the remainder of the continent. Last week, the African Union convened an emergency summit to address the deteriorating situation in the US. In a rare unified statement, AU leaders condemned the US government’s actions and tasked President Ramaphosa with raising the issue before the United Nations.

Their mandate? Repatriate African Americans and offer refuge.

Ramaphosa confirmed that the first charter flights carrying refugees will arrive on African soil on May 25 – Africa Day.

“As the sun sets on this dark chapter of American history,” Ramaphosa said, “a new dawn is rising over Africa. We will not remain passive while a genocide unfolds in the United States.”

***

Of course, none of this has happened.

There was no statement on “Egregious Actions and Extensive Failures of the US Government” from South Africa. There was no news conference where an African leader highlighted the plight of his African brothers and sisters in the United States and offered them options.

There will be no refuge flights from Detroit to Pretoria.

Instead, after the US cut off aid to South Africa, repeated false accusations that a “white genocide” is taking place there and began welcoming Afrikaners as refugees, a pragmatic Ramaphosa paid a respectful visit to the White House on May 21.

During his visit, watched closely by the world media, he did not even mention the millions of African Americans facing discrimination, police violence and abuse under a president who is clearly determined to “Make America White Again” – let alone offer them refuge in Africa. Even when Trump insisted, without any basis in reality, that a genocide is being perpetrated against white people in his country, Ramaphosa did not bring up Washington’s long list of – very real, systemic, and seemingly accelerating – crimes against Black Americans.

He tried to remain polite and diplomatic, focusing not on the racist hostility of the American administration but on the important ties between the two nations.

Perhaps, in the real world, it is too much to ask an African leader to risk diplomatic fallout by defending Black lives abroad.

Perhaps it is easier to shake hands with a man who calls imaginary white suffering a “genocide” rather than to call out a real one unfolding on his watch.

In another world, Ramaphosa stood tall in Pretoria and told Trump`: “We will not accept your lies about our country – and we will not stay silent as you brutalise our kin in yours.”

In this one, he stood quietly in Washington – and did.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

WASHINGTON — President Trump used a White House meeting to forcefully confront South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, accusing the country of failing to address Trump’s baseless claim of the systematic killing of white farmers.

Trump even dimmed the lights of the Oval Office to play a video of a far-left politician chanting a song that includes the lyrics “kill the farmer.” He also leafed through news articles to underscore his point, saying the country’s white farmers have faced “death, death, death, horrible death.”

Trump had already cut all U.S. assistance to South Africa and welcomed several dozen white South African farmers to the U.S. as refugees as he pressed the case that a “genocide” is underway in the country.

The U.S. president has launched a series of accusations at South Africa’s Black-led government, claiming it is seizing land from white farmers, enforcing anti-white policies and pursuing an anti-American foreign policy.

Experts in South Africa say there is no evidence of white people being targeted for their race, although farmers of all races are victims of violent home invasions in a country that suffers from a very high crime rate.

“People are fleeing South Africa for their own safety,” Trump said. “Their land is being confiscated and in many cases they’re being killed.”

Ramaphosa pushed back against Trump’s accusation. The South African leader had sought to use the meeting to set the record straight and salvage his country’s relationship with the United States. The bilateral relationship is at its lowest point since South Africa enforced its apartheid system of racial segregation, which ended in 1994.

“We are completely opposed to that,” Ramaphosa said of the behavior alleged by Trump in their exchange. He added, “that is not government policy” and “our government policy is completely, completely against what he was saying.”

Trump was unmoved.

“When they take the land, they kill the white farmer,” he said.

At the start of the Oval Office meeting, Trump described the South African president as a “truly respected man in many, many circles.” He added: “And in some circles he’s considered a little controversial.”

Ramaphosa chimed in, playfully jabbing back at a U.S. president who is no stranger to controversy. “We’re all like that,” Ramaphosa said.

Trump issued an executive order in February cutting all funding to South Africa over some of its domestic and foreign policies. The order criticized the South African government on multiple fronts, saying it is pursuing anti-white policies at home and supporting “bad actors” in the world like the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Iran.

Trump has falsely accused the South African government of a rights violation against white Afrikaner farmers by seizing their land through a new expropriation law. No land has been seized, and the South African government has pushed back, saying U.S. criticism is driven by misinformation.

The Trump administration’s references to the Afrikaner people — who are descendants of Dutch and other European settlers — have also elevated previous claims made by Trump’s South African-born advisor Elon Musk and some conservative U.S. commentators that the South African government is allowing attacks on white farmers in what amounts to a genocide.

That has been disputed by experts in South Africa, who say there is no evidence of white people being targeted, although farmers of all races are victims of violent home invasions in a country that suffers from a very high crime rate.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday said Trump remains ready to “reset” relations with South Africa, but noted that the administration’s concerns about South African policies cut even deeper then the concerns about white farmers.

South Africa has also angered the Trump White House over its move to bring charges at the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Ramaphosa has also faced scrutiny in Washington for his past connections to MTN Group, Iran’s second-largest telecom provider. It owns nearly half of Irancell, a joint venture linked with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Ramaphosa served as board chair of MTN from 2002 to 2013.

“When one country is consistently unaligned with the United States on issue after issue after issue after issue, now you become — you have to make conclusions about it,” Rubio told Senate Foreign Relation Committee members at a Tuesday hearing.

With the deep differences, Ramaphosa tried mightily to avoid the sort of contentious engagement that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky experienced during his late February Oval Office visit, when the Ukrainian leader found himself being berated by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. That disastrous meeting ended with White House officials asking Zelensky and his delegation to leave the White House grounds.

The South African president’s delegation included golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen in his delegation, a gesture to the golf-obsessed U.S. president. Ramaphosa brought Trump a massive book about South Africa’s golf courses. He even told Trump that he’s been working on his golf game, seeming to angle for an invitation to the links with the president.

Luxury goods tycoon and Afrikaner Johann Rupert was also in the delegation to help ease Trump’s concerns that land was being seized from white farmers.

Ramaphosa turned to the golfers, Rupert and others to try to push back gently on Trump and make the case that the issue of crime in South Africa is multidimensional problem.

At one point, Ramaphosa called on Zingiswa Losi, the president of a group of South African trade unions, who told Trump it is true that South Africa is a “violent nation for a number of reasons.” But she told him it was important to understand that Black men and women in rural areas were also being targeted in heinous crimes.

“The problem in South Africa, it is not necessarily about race, but it’s about crime,” Losi said. “We are here to say how do we, both nations, work together to reset, to really talk about investment but also help … to really address the levels of crime we have in our country.”

Musk also attended Wednesday’s talks. He has been at the forefront of the criticism of his homeland, casting its affirmative action laws as racist against white people.

Musk has said on social media that his Starlink satellite internet service isn’t able to get a license to operate in South Africa because he is not Black.

South African authorities say Starlink hasn’t formally applied. It can, but it would be bound by affirmative action laws in the communications sector that require foreign companies to allow 30% of their South African subsidiaries to be owned by shareholders who are Black or from other racial groups disadvantaged under apartheid.

The South African government says its long-standing affirmative action laws are a cornerstone of its efforts to right the injustices of the white minority rule of apartheid, which denied opportunities to Black people and other racial groups.

Imray and Madhani write for the Associated Press. Imray reported from Johannesburg. AP writers Seung Min Kim, Chris Megerian and Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

Johannesburg, South Africa – When the millionaire mining magnate-turned-president of South Africa landed in Washington to meet the billionaire real estate tycoon-turned-president of the United States, it was with a deal in mind.

Tensions have been escalating between the US and its African trade ally since Donald Trump took office this year, cut off aid to South Africa, repeated false accusations that a “white genocide” is taking place there and began welcoming Afrikaners as refugees.

At the meeting between Trump and Cyril Ramaphosa in the White House on Wednesday, the South African president began by focusing heavily on trade and investments, highlighting the two countries’ years of cooperation, in keeping with statements made by South Africa’s presidency that Ramaphosa would present a trade deal to the US.

But Trump responded with a well-prepared redirect that South African media and analysts described as an “ambush” and a move that “blindsided” Ramaphosa.

Ready with printouts of news articles about alleged white victims of killings in South Africa and a video of firebrand opposition politician Julius Malema singing Kill the Boer, Trump insisted that white farmers were being targeted and murdered – an assertion Ramaphosa politely yet firmly denied, saying criminality was a problem for all South Africans regardless of race.

The team Ramaphosa assembled to join him on his working visit – which included four white South Africans: two golf legends, the wealthiest man in the country and the agriculture minister – all reaffirmed Ramaphosa’s facts that while violence was widespread, white people were not specifically being targeted.

“We have a real safety problem in South Africa, and I don’t think anyone wants to candy-coat that,” said John Steenhuisen, the agriculture minister and a member of the Democratic Alliance party, which is part of South Africa’s governing coalition.

“Certainly, the majority of South Africa’s commercial and smallholder farmers really do want to stay in South Africa and make it work,” the minister, who is himself an Afrikaner, said. Trump claimed that “thousands” of white farmers were fleeing South Africa.

Steenhuisen added that the people in the video Trump showed were leaders of opposition minority parties and his party had joined forces with Ramaphosa “precisely to keep those people out of power”.

‘The lion’s den’

The meeting began cordially where Trump complimented South African golfers, including well-known Ernie Els and Retief Goosen, who were part of the delegation. They both implored Trump for enhanced trade to uplift South Africa’s economy.

Also in the delegation was South Africa’s richest man, Johann Rupert, a luxury-goods mogul and an Afrikaner. He countered claims of racial persecution against the white minority, saying that while criminality was rife, Black people were more often the victims.

“We have too many deaths, but it’s across the board. It is not only white farmers,” Rupert said to Trump.

Ramaphosa kept his cool, local media and observers said, noting that the South African president chose to remain calm, patient and light-hearted even in light of Trump’s attack.

He steered talks back to trade, saying South Africa needed economic investment from its allies, and mostly sat expressionless while the video was played, occasionally stretching his neck to look at it.

Ramaphosa went into “the lion’s den” and was met with an ambush but he remained calm, South African political analyst Sanusha Naidu said.

“Ramaphosa and the delegation did not allow themselves to be baited into an emotional response. That’s critical. They made Trump feel like he had the upper hand in the meeting,” she told Al Jazeera, adding that given the narrative from Trump before Ramaphosa’s arrival, it “could have gone worse”.

When asked by a reporter whether he wanted the impasse between the US and South Africa resolved, Trump said he was open to it.

“I hope it has to be resolved. It should be resolved,” he said, adding that if it were not resolved, it would be “the end of the country”.

‘Reset’ relations

Before the two leaders met on Wednesday, Ramaphosa’s office said the aim was to “reset” relations, especially as the US is South Africa’s second largest trading partner after China.

“Whether we like it or not, we are joined at the hip, and we need to be talking to them,” the South African president said before his trip.

Christopher Isike, a political scientist at the University of Pretoria, told Al Jazeera that direct engagement between the leaders was important, given the tense relations between their countries.

“This is an opportunity for South Africa to correct misinformation peddled by President Trump and try to reset trade relations between the two countries,” he said.

Isike noted that both presidents’ backgrounds as businesspeople could provide common ground for discussing mutually advantageous deals.

“Rich friends of Ramaphosa are also rich friends of Trump, and that may have helped facilitate the meeting,” Isike added.

Common ground and level heads would be useful as the leaders continued private talks away from the media on Wednesday, observers said.

Before the visit, Ramaphosa maintained that while Trump was a dealmaker, he too was adept at making deals and even joked about the possibility of playing a round of golf with his US counterpart.

Washington, however, has criticised Pretoria for a host of matters since Trump took office. This continued in the meeting on Wednesday.

Trump focused on the white farmers, particularly Afrikaners – the descendants of mainly Dutch settlers who instituted apartheid. He alleged they are being killed because of their race despite evidence showing that attacks and killings are common across all groups in the country.

Trump also mentioned South Africa’s land reform law that allows land in the public interest to be taken without compensation in exceptional circumstances in an effort to redress apartheid injustices. Pretoria said no white land has been taken, but the US said the law unfairly targets minority white South Africans who are the majority landholders.

Despite Pretoria consistently seeking to rectify false assertions, the Trump administration has pushed ahead with a plan to take in Afrikaners as refugees. The first group arrived last week. He has also cut aid, including vital support for life-saving HIV programmes, to South Africa.

Additionally, there are worries that Trump may not attend the Group of 20 summit being held in South Africa in November and his government may not renew the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), key US trade legislation that assists economies in sub-Saharan Africa. It expires in September.

Trade and investments

Before Wednesday’s meetings, Ramaphosa said strengthening trade relations between the two countries was his primary motivation for travelling to Washington, DC.

“We want to come out of the United States with a really good trade deal, investment promotion. We invest in the United States, and they invest in us. We want to strengthen those relations. We want to consolidate relations between the two countries,” he said.

This week, South Africa’s ministers of trade and agriculture, Parks Tau and Steenhuisen, met with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to present the first draft of a trade deal.

In 2024, total goods trade between the US and South Africa amounted to $20.5bn. This included $5.8bn in US exports to South Africa and $14.7bn in South African exports to the US.

However, some observers said that at the heart of the potential trade deal is what South Africa could offer billionaire and close Trump ally, Elon Musk, given his ongoing claims about obstacles he allegedly faces in operating Starlink, his satellite internet company, in the country where he was born due to its transformation laws.

These laws seek to redress past injustices that kept Black people destitute and require businesses over a certain size to have a 30 percent equity stake held by members of previously disadvantaged groups.

Speaking at the Doha Economic Forum on Tuesday, Musk reiterated his assertions about laws he claimed were biased against white people despite experts explaining that most of those only seek to promote racial justice.

“All races must be on equal footing in South Africa. That is the right thing to do. Do not replace one set of racist laws with another set of racist laws, which is utterly wrong and improper,” Musk said.

“I am in an absurd situation where I was born in South Africa but cannot get a licence to operate Starlink because I am not Black,” he claimed.

Before Wednesday’s meeting, a White House official told the Reuters news agency Trump is likely to tell Ramaphosa that all US companies in South Africa should be exempt from “racial requirements”.

Opposition figure Malema’s party, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), threatened legal action after news that the government was considering offering regulatory assurances to Musk’s Starlink. The EFF said the move would be unconstitutional and shows Ramaphosa is willing to compromise the country’s sovereignty to “massage the inflated ego of Musk and Trump”.

Isike said that while trade concessions would be discussed, he doubted the South African government would give up its laws to appease Musk.

“I will be surprised if Starlink gets its way by refusing to follow South African transformation laws, which require 30 percent Black ownership of a foreign company,” he said.

‘Genocide’ claims

Meanwhile, in private talks, Ramaphosa and Trump were also expected to discuss foreign policy issues, including peace prospects between Russia and Ukraine and South Africa’s support for Palestine and its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Some political observers said Pretoria is in the US crosshairs partly because of its actions against the key Washington ally.

Patrick Bond, a sociology professor at the University of Johannesburg, predicted before the talks that the US might offer to retract claims of “white genocide” in exchange for South Africa dropping its case at the ICJ.

South Africa is seeking to hold Israel accountable for its assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 53,000 Palestinians since October 2023. The US is Israel’s strongest ally and arms supplier.

“We are very rational when it comes to discussing global and geopolitical matters. We will put South African positions first, and our foreign policy positions will be clarified,” Ramaphosa said before the meeting.

As the Gaza genocide case against Israel continues in The Hague, US allegations of a widely discredited “white genocide” in South Africa continue to follow the country’s leadership.

Before Trump and Ramaphosa retreated to private meetings on Wednesday, a reporter asked the US president if he had decided whether genocide was being committed in South Africa. “I haven’t made up my mind,” he replied.

The unfounded claim of white genocide has “taken on a life of its own”, analyst Paolo von Schirach, president of the Global Policy Institute in Washington, DC, told Al Jazeera.

It will be difficult for Ramaphosa and Trump to rebound after the Oval Office “ambush”, he said.

“We know that Elon Musk certainly fanned this story [about a white genocide], and he’s probably not the only one,” von Schirach said. “It’s going to be hard for Trump to say, ‘Oh, so sorry. I was misinformed.’”

The administration of US President Donald Trump has granted refugee status to 49 white Afrikaners, echoing a debunked conspiracy theory about “white genocide” in South Africa. The move comes after Trump cut aid to the nation and threatened to boycott meetings with its government. What’s behind Trump’s fixation on South Africa?