News

Fadiel Adams Faces Suspension After Vulgar Rant: What Happened in Parliament

Published

2 months ago

July 23, 2025

Chiraag

Fadiel Adams vulgar rant apology, suspension from Parliament, National Assembly Speaker Didiza, DA MP insulted online, political controversy South Africa 2025, financial interest declaration breach, Joburg ETC

Fadiel Adams Suspended from Parliament After Vulgar Rant Goes Viral

It is not often that a Facebook video lands a Member of Parliament in hot water with the National Assembly. But that is exactly what happened to Fadiel Adams, leader of the National Coloured Congress, after his vulgar, racist, and sexist video rant sparked national outrage and swift consequences.

In a rare show of unified reprimand, Parliament has suspended Adams from debates and committees for 15 days, docked his salary for the same period, and ordered him to apologise both publicly and directly to the woman targeted in his rant.

The Video That Sparked a Political Backlash

It all started with a nine-minute video posted to Facebook earlier this year, in which Adams launched into a tirade against a female Democratic Alliance member, accusing her of endangering his children, insulting DA mayor Geordin Hill-Lewis, and using language the Ethics Committee later described as “extremely vulgar and derogatory.”

The video triggered a formal complaint by DA Chief Whip George Michalakis, who submitted the case to the Office of the Registrar of Members’ Interests.

Parliament’s Ethics Code Steps In

The Ethics Committee investigated the matter and found that Adams had clearly contravened the Members’ Code of Conduct. While Adams eventually admitted wrongdoing and agreed to apologise, Speaker Thoko Didiza made it clear that this was not a minor issue.

“These remarks are repugnant and wholly unbefitting of high office,” Didiza said during her official reprimand in the National Assembly. She reminded MPs that the Ethics Code explicitly prohibits the use of derogatory, racist, or sexist language, especially on social media, which could bring Parliament into disrepute.

The Apology, The Penalty, and the Lesson

Faced with mounting pressure and an official ruling, Adams stood in the National Assembly and issued a brief, if somewhat flat, apology:

“I will apologise, Speaker. I will withdraw. Thank you.”

In addition to his suspension and salary docking, Adams is required to attend a formal ethics consultation session with Speaker Didiza, the Ethics Committee co-chairs, and the Acting Registrar. The aim? To remind him, and, perhaps, others, of the standards expected from South Africans elected to serve.

Public Response: Not Good Enough

On social media, the apology was widely criticised as insincere and too late. “Sorry isn’t enough when you use your platform to insult women,” wrote one user on X. Another pointed out, “The punishment feels like a tap on the wrist. Parliament needs to take gendered abuse more seriously.”

Others questioned the tone of Parliament’s own approach. “We need accountability, not just a workshop and a time-out,” one activist posted.

And What About Minister Ramokgopa?

While Adams took most of the spotlight, another name quietly entered the reprimand list: Minister for Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation, Maropene Ramokgopa. She was fined R10 000, to be docked from her salary, after failing to declare her financial interests in time in 2024, a direct violation of the same Ethics Code.

Speaker Didiza said Ramokgopa missed the opportunity to submit written reasons for the delay, adding, “This is not acceptable.” While she was abroad during previous hearings, her failure to comply triggered a financial penalty.

Why This Moment Matters

South Africa’s Parliament has long struggled with balancing accountability and political theatre. In this case, the Ethics Committee took visible action, but public trust will depend on whether future violations are met with consistent consequences.

At a time when gender-based violence, political rhetoric, and public trust are all under the spotlight, how MPs behave online and offline matters more than ever. This episode, if nothing else, serves as a sobering reminder that power comes with responsibility, and Parliament is watching.