Parliament rebukes Lex Libertas and defends its oversight role

What sparked the clash

The dispute intensified after Lex Libertas executive director Ernst Roets criticised comments made in parliamentary discussions about organisations accused of spreading misinformation about South Africa abroad. Lex Libertas objected to proposals it says were put forward by senior ANC figures and 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 the country.

Lex Libertas characterised those proposals as including possible prosecution and measures related to citizenship for individuals accused of spreading misinformation overseas, and identified the committee chairperson, Supra Mahumapelo, as one of the ANC leaders associated with the proposals.

Committee response and denials

Chairperson Supra Mahumapelo and the committee rejected the suggestion that Parliament intends to remove citizenship as punishment for political views.

“No one in the committee has proposed that citizenship be withdrawn as punishment for holding a different political view,”

Mahumapelo said the committee was exercising a proper oversight function. He described the matter raised in Parliament as a legitimate policy question and pointed to Parliament’s powers under Section 55(2) of the Constitution as governing its right to raise such issues.

Mahumapelo framed the committee’s role as focusing on conduct rather than mere disagreement:

“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.”

Claims the committee says it must scrutinise

The committee took a clear position on several claims it says are being presented abroad as facts. It challenged allegations of a state-sponsored “white genocide” and described claims of state-sanctioned farm attacks as false. It also rejected assertions that the Expropriation Act allows arbitrary land seizures without compensation or judicial oversight, and disputed arguments that broad-based black economic empowerment (B-BBEE) policies amount to race-based discrimination that would justify foreign sanctions.

The committee warned that when such claims are taken overseas and presented as fact, they can have tangible foreign-policy consequences.

“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.”

Invitation to engage and to present evidence

Mahumapelo rejected suggestions that Parliament was trying to silence critics and emphasised that formal channels for engagement remain available.

“The invitation to engage is genuine.”

The committee said Parliament has previously conducted public hearings and committee processes on topics including expropriation, transformation legislation and South Africa’s relations with the United States. It also stated that neither Lex Libertas nor its representatives had approached the committee seeking an audience.

In a direct challenge, Mahumapelo urged Lex Libertas to submit its claims to public scrutiny and to do so under oath:

“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.”

He added a broader instruction for anyone alleging government wrongdoing:

“If anyone has evidence of wrongdoing by government, bring it to Parliament. Bring it to court. Bring it to the Chapter 9 institutions.”

Patriotism, punishment and accountability

Mahumapelo sought to draw a distinction between domestic criticism and actions that, in his view, invite foreign reprisals.

“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.”

He reiterated that his earlier comments were about accountability for misinformation rather than arbitrary deprivation of rights:

“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, committee says

The committee made clear it intends to continue its oversight work despite the controversy.

“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.”

Mahumapelo added:

“We will not threaten anyone, but we will not be intimidated out of our oversight role either.”

Responding to characterisations that Parliament’s stance is intimidating, he warned:

“Threats will not silence anyone. But neither will accusations of threats silence Parliament.”

He said the committee will continue work 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.”

Why this matters a practical perspective

Parliamentary committees are charged with scrutinising matters that intersect domestic policy and international relations. When claims about a country’s domestic situation are presented to foreign governments and institutions, there can be consequences that extend beyond political debate, including restrictions or penalties that affect ordinary citizens. That is the concern the committee says it is addressing.

Public hearings and sworn testimony are standard avenues for testing contested claims and for allowing evidence and counter-evidence to be examined in a transparent forum. Courts and Chapter 9 institutions are other recognised channels for pursuing allegations of wrongdoing and seeking legal remedies.

What comes next

At the centre of the dispute remains a fundamental choice about how contentious claims about South Africa should be handled: whether they should be aired and tested domestically, or raised directly with foreign legislatures and governments. The committee has made its position clear it will defend its oversight mandate and continue to invite formal engagement through parliamentary processes and other established institutions.