Committee hits back at Lex Libertas, ‘Parliament won’t be intimidated or silenced’

Lex Libertas slammed proposals by senior ANC leaders to act against South Africans engaging foreign governments. Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation has robustly defended its oversight role amid a growing dispute with advocacy group Lex Libertas, which accuses some organisations of bypassing South Africa’s democratic institutions and seeking to influence foreign governments on how to “punish South Africa.” The clash follows criticism from Lex Libertas executive director Ernst Roets over remarks made during recent parliamentary discussions on organisations accused of spreading misinformation about South Africa abroad. Lex Libertas criticised proposals by senior ANC figures, allegedly backed by International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola, to take action against South Africans and civil society organisations that engage foreign governments on issues affecting South Africa. Roets argued that proposals involving possible prosecution or citizenship-related measures target individuals accused of spreading misinformation abroad. Lex Libertas identified Parliament’s International Relations Committee chairperson, Supra Mahumapelo, as one of the ANC leaders behind the proposals. Stripping South Africans Responding to Roets’ open letter to Lamola, committee chairperson Mahumapelo rejected claims that Parliament was seeking to strip South Africans of their citizenship because of their political views. “No one in the committee has proposed that citizenship be withdrawn as punishment for holding a different political view,” the committee said. Instead, Mahumapelo argued that Parliament is entitled to examine how South Africa should respond when private organisations engage foreign governments in ways that could result in visa restrictions, economic pressure, or other measures affecting the country. “What was raised in Parliament last week was a principled policy question that Parliament is entitled to raise under Section 55(2) of the Constitution. It is not about disagreement. It is about conduct.” Foreign Lobbying At the centre of the dispute are claims taken abroad about South Africa’s political and social environment. The committee directly challenged allegations of a state-sponsored “white genocide” and claims of state-sanctioned farm attacks, describing them as false. Expropriations Act It also rejected assertions that the Expropriation Act permits arbitrary land seizures without compensation or judicial oversight, and disputed arguments that broad-based black economic empowerment (B-BBE) policies constitute race-based discrimination warranting sanctions or punitive action from foreign governments. “When such claims are taken to the United States and presented as fact to secure visa bans on South Africans, trade penalties and aid withdrawals that affect ordinary citizens, it ceases to be domestic debate; it becomes a foreign policy matter that this committee must oversee.” ‘Bring It to Parliament’ Mahumapelo dismissed suggestions that Parliament was attempting to silence critics, insisting that channels for engagement remain open. “The invitation to engage is genuine.” The committee noted that Parliament has previously held public hearings and committee processes on expropriation, transformation legislation, and South Africa’s relations with the United States. It also said neither Lex Libertas nor its representatives had ever approached the committee for an audience. Claims In one of the strongest statements, Mahumapelo challenged the organisation to submit its claims to public scrutiny. “Lex Libertas should present its evidence on farm attacks, property rights and transformation legislation under oath, in public and subject to questioning. That is the appropriate forum for evidence and counter-evidence, not a foreign legislature.” “If anyone has evidence of wrongdoing by government, bring it to Parliament. Bring it to court. Bring it to the Chapter 9 institutions,” he added. Patriotism or Punishment? Mahumapelo drew a sharp distinction between criticism of government and advocacy that could bring consequences to the country. “To criticise the government because you love South Africa is patriotic. To invite foreign punishment of South Africa because you dislike the government is something else entirely.” Citizenship He also rejected suggestions that his earlier remarks amounted to a call to revoke citizenship. “My call for consequences was not a call to strip citizenship arbitrarily. It was a call for accountability for misinformation that harms the country.” Parliament ‘Will Not Be Intimidated’ Mahumapelo insisted that Parliament would continue scrutinising the issue despite criticism. “What we cannot accept is a practice where some citizens consistently fail to engage domestic institutions and instead seek to become interlocutors for foreign governments on how to punish South Africa.” “We will not threaten anyone, but we will not be intimidated out of our oversight role either,” he added. Warning In a direct response to allegations that Parliament’s stance amounts to intimidation, Mahumapelo issued a warning of his own. “Threats will not silence anyone. But neither will accusations of threats silence Parliament.” He said the committee would continue working to “recalibrate US-SA relations, protect South Africa’s sovereignty and constitutional order, and defend the rights of all South Africans, including the right to disagree.”