Controversy Erupts as uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party Complains Against Ramaphosa and Steenhuisen

The political landscape in South Africa is once again buzzing with controversy following a complaint lodged by the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party against President Cyril Ramaphosa and John Steenhuisen, leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA). This incident unfolded during a recent delegation visit to the United States, where the duo met with Trump administration officials at the White House, under the shadow of contentious claims made by former President Donald Trump.

Background of the White House Meeting

The meeting took place in May 2025, as part of diplomatic efforts to mitigate tensions between the USA and South Africa. These tensions have escalated due to Trump’s accusations of a “white genocide” occurring in South Africa, a claim that has drawn significant international scrutiny and condemnation. The MK Party expressed dissatisfaction with both Ramaphosa and Steenhuisen, accusing them of failing to represent South African interests adequately during the meeting.

Who is the uMkhonto weSizwe Party?

The MK Party, founded by former South African President Jacob Zuma, positions itself as a voice of resistance against what it perceives as the mismanagement of the country’s political landscape. With roots tracing back to the armed wing of the African National Congress (ANC), the party has repositioned itself within the modern political framework, emphasizing its commitment to advocating for the rights and well-being of South Africans, especially regarding land reform and economic justice.

Key Complaints Against Ramaphosa and Steenhuisen

The MK Party’s formal complaint, which it submitted to Parliament’s Ethics Committee, centers around two main issues:

1. Steenhuisen’s Agenda-Driven Comments: The MK Party took issue with remarks made by Steenhuisen during the meeting that they perceived as an attempt to further his own party’s agenda, rather than focusing purely on state matters. Specifically, he reportedly stated that keeping the MK Party out of the government is vital for South Africa’s democratic integrity.

2. Ramaphosa’s Silence: The party also criticized President Ramaphosa for remaining passive during the meeting, accusing him of failing to correct Steenhuisen’s contentious assertions. They felt that his silence implied tacit agreement, thereby undermining the legitimacy of the MK’s historical significance and current aspirations.

What Were the Inside Remarks?

During the meeting, Steenhuisen addressed Trump’s controversial claims, emphasizing the importance of collaboration among opposition parties to prevent what he characterized as dangerous elements from taking power. He stated:

“The reason that my party, which has been an opposition party, chose to join hands with Mr. Ramaphosa’s party was precisely to keep those people out of power. We cannot have those people sitting at the Union Buildings and making decisions.”

These comments regarding political alliances did not sit well with the MK Party, prompting demands for an official retraction and apologies from both Steenhuisen and Ramaphosa.

Social Reactions

The aftermath of the complaint has ignited a lively discussion across social media platforms. Many South Africans have shared their opinions, with a mix of skepticism and amusement regarding the motives behind the MK Party’s actions. Some critics pointed out that much of the party’s energy seems focused on attacking Ramaphosa instead of addressing significant issues facing South Africans.

Magetle Mphahleng Makgata humorously noted:

“All their court cases are about Cyril, vele.”

Former ANC supporters and critics have argued that MK’s current strategies appear to neglect core issues affecting the populace, highlighting a perceived disconnect between the party’s mission and its current trajectory.

Public Sentiment

Several comments from the public suggest that they view the MK Party’s complaints as less about ethical governance and more about personal political vendettas. Zubenathi Dlamini summarized this sentiment, stating:

“No one must take this MK stokvel seriously.”

Another user, Zithembe Ngobese, expressed frustration with the MK’s focus, speculating that:

“According to me, Zuma established the MK on a personal basis of fighting Ramaphosa.”

These reactions highlight broader social sentiments surrounding the relevance and authenticity of the MK Party’s objectives compared to its ongoing criticisms of the current administration.

The MK Party’s Stance on Coalition Governance

Interestingly, in a related development, the MK Party has declared its refusal to join any potential expansion of the Government of National Unity, asserting that such movements have historically “sold black people out.” This stance places the party in a delicate position within the greater framework of South African politics and raises questions about its future relevance in coalition politics.

The dynamics highlighted by the MK Party’s complaints against Ramaphosa and Steenhuisen encapsulate a critical moment in South African politics—one rife with historical legacies, contemporary challenges, and a citizenry eager for genuine representation and accountability. As this political saga unfolds, it remains to be seen how the MK Party will navigate its own identity amid the controversies surrounding its prominent leaders.