Publications
Partners
President Cyril Ramaphosa briefly lost his cool in Parliament on Tuesday, telling DA chief whip John Steenhuisen to “shut up” and accusing the Economic Freedom Fighters of jumping on the “expropriation bandwagon”.
Ramaphosa was taken to task by members of Parliament in the National Assembly as he faced his second question-and-answer session since taking office in February.
Exhibiting a cool demeanour at first, Ramaphosa tackled gruelling questions relating to his government’s economic growth strategy, socioeconomic challenges such as jobs and inequality still facing a majority of South Africans as well as the contentious issue of land expropriation without compensation.
On the question of the new envoys who would travel to major financial centres in Asia, the Middle East, Europe and the Americas to meet with potential investors, the president reiterated that their mandate was to attract a total amount of R1.2 trillion in new investment over the next five years.
According to the president: “The four economic envoys will tell investors that South Africa is on a path to economic revival. They will convey the message that South Africa is buoyed by a new optimism, improved business confidence as well as an improved investor sentiment.”
Ramaphosa also explained that the interventions in the education system, in particular the awarding of fee-free tertiary education would boost South Africa’s capabilities by adding qualified staff to the country’s workforce.
“This will improve South Africa’s investment climate as should the one-stop shops set up by the government to attract investors,” said Ramaphosa.
In a follow-up question, the EFF’s Floyd Shivambu urged the president to “create a state-owned bank as recognised by the Banks Act to attract foreign investors.”
A buoyant Ramaphosa said that the creation of a state owned bank was a resolution taken by the governing party and added that he fully supported the idea of a state-owned bank because “through this bank we will increase the money pool of the country”.
The president went to say that “beside a state-owned bank, there is a need for stokvel banks or township banks as a move away from the monopoly of the four large banks to make finance accessible to all”.
When asked whether it would be in the interest of the country for a commission of inquiry to be set up for the alleged serious dysfunction, malfeasance, corruption and gross abuse of resources of state within Crime Intelligence, Ramaphosa answered that he would be setting up a review panel to assess the structure of the agency relative to its mandate and inquiry into its systems and capacity.
The previously confident Ramaphosa became clearly evasive when asked in a follow-up question from the DA’s Mmusi Maimane on why former state agency director Arthur Fraser was being given “special treatment”. Instead of being fired or suspended he had been given a new role.
Ramaphosa avoided the question, arguing that the matter had been taken to court and he could not comment any further on the issue.
When addressing the matter of socioeconomic challenges such as jobs and inequality, the EFF asked whether the issue of land expropriation without compensation would not be the answer.
Ramaphosa was quick to argue that his party had adopted this resolution in its 54th conference last year and the EFF had merely jumped on the bandwagon.
These sentiments did not sit well with the opposition party and the proceedings degenerated into an unruly “back and forth” between members of the EFF and the parliamentary chair.
Matters took a turn for the worst when a visibly irritated Ramaphosa lost his cool and told DA chief whip John Steenhuisen to “shut up” and let him respond to a question posed by Maimane.
Ramaphosa regained his composure and addressed concerns about “acts of corruption and other acts of wrongdoing within the intelligence agencies” as well as the wounds of poverty, homelessness and hunger of millions of people due to history that has not been dealt with.
He urged South Africans that land grabs were not the way to solve the deep-seated socio-inequalities but maintained that “those who do not have houses must have houses. Those without land must have land. This demand will never go away despite there being some who reject it.”
