Illustrative image: The head of the SANDF, General Rudzani Maphwanya (left), has been rebuked by two ministries and President Cyril Ramaphosa for his statements about Iran.(Image: Wikipedia Commons | Photos: Per-Anders Pettersson / Gallo Images | Frennie Shivambu / Gallo Images)
The case for President Cyril Ramaphosa to fire the head of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF), General Rudzani Maphwanya, is now overwhelming. The latter’s trip to Iran and his reported comments there are not his first mistakes.
He should account for his handling of the murder of Hawks investigator, Lieutenant Colonel Frans Mathipa, in which his soldiers are implicated. And by acting against Maphwanya now, Ramaphosa could re-establish the principle that men in uniform answer to a democratically elected authority.
For a government employee to receive a public rebuke from a ministry or the Presidency is incredibly rare. To receive rebukes from two ministries and the Presidency is probably unprecedented – even if Defence and Military Veterans Minister Angie Motshekga has now contradicted herself and claims he did nothing wrong.
Read more: President Ramaphosa to meet SANDF chief over ‘ill-advised’ visit to Iran
But Maphwanya’s actions in going to Iran, holding a public meeting there at this particular time and then making the comments that he did have no justification.
There can be no doubt that leaders of militaries around the world hold meetings with each other. This is generally a good thing. And those who lead these forces should have the space in which to do this.
After all, it was once revealed that in 2021 the head of the US military communicated secretly with the head of the Chinese military, to reassure him that he would prevent the then outgoing President Donald Trump from attacking China.
But in a properly functioning democracy a military leader must also know where the line is. They cannot make policy. And they cannot act without full and explicit permission from their democratically elected leaders.
They should also understand the world.
While Maphwanya may well have had a good reason for going to Iran, he surely should have known that the timing, immediately after Iran’s conflict with the US, was unwise, particularly with our currently difficult relationship with Washington.
He must also have known that at least one of his meetings would be filmed. And while he might now claim that he was misquoted, he should not have put himself in a position in which this could happen.
To be blunt, Maphwanya should have known that Iran would see this as a coup for them. And to say anything in public about our relationship with Iran, during the current period of tension with the US, was simply not his place.
It is likely that he and his supporters will claim that he had permission from Motshekga to go to Tehran. It is clearly true, as she has now confirmed, that he did have permission to go. But this was granted in 2024.
And while Motshekga is, oddly, backing him in the face of her own original criticism of his conduct, this is still not good enough. He must take responsibility for what he did, and for doing it when he did it.
The case for Ramaphosa to fire Maphwanya is strengthened by Maphwanya’s handling of Mathipa’s murder.
Twelve members of the SANDF are now facing trial for his murder, after he started investigating the abduction of a person from the Mall of Africa. The Special Forces unit members are being defended in court by lawyers who are being paid by the SANDF.
Why would the SANDF do this?
There is no death penalty under our law, which means there can be no “legitimate purpose” or “acting under orders” defence for his killing.
This means the SANDF can only argue that they are innocent, that it was not them who killed Mathipa.
If you faced a murder charge, would your employer pay your legal bills?
Why would it be different in this case, if there can be no justification for killing Mathipa?
It should also be remembered that when Maphwanya first addressed this issue, before the arrest of these officers, he said: “For the record, there are no military squads in the defence force that exist to carry out acts of torture and murder, for whatever reasons. The SANDF stands for the defence and protection of the people and will always account within the confines of the law and the Constitution.”
This is so overly broad that it is laughable. He is one person. The SANDF has more than 70,000 members. He cannot possibly know what is going on in every nook and cranny of the force.
For him to say this is simply unwise. It comes across as almost immature.
There are other reasons that Ramaphosa should take immediate and substantive action against Maphwanya. As has been noted many times, South Africa is becoming more and more ripe for some kind of populist dictator.
As Jonny Steinberg and others have noted, the way in which KwaZulu-Natal’s police commissioner, Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, made his public appearance when he announced his claims against the now-suspended Police Minister Senzo Mchunu is incredibly revealing.
Even more important was the reaction from so many people who were watching. It appears that Mkhwanazi has support from many parts of our society.
One can understand why. Our politics, and so many of our politicians, have become so rotten that people are desperate for any alternative.
This is strengthening the appetite for a man in uniform to take over.
This would be an important opportunity for Ramaphosa to demonstrate that those who are democratically elected are in charge. By firing Maphwanya he would be sending an important signal that men in uniform cannot disobey him, and other elected leaders.
There is another reason, which has nothing to do with Maphwanya, that Ramaphosa might want to act. One of the President’s great weaknesses is his apparent inability to make decisions. In many cases this can be understood as a fear of a lack of support in the ANC.
In this case it seems unlikely that this is a factor. There is no public evidence that Maphwanya has any kind of strong political constituency.
And while he may be popular in the SANDF, it seems unlikely that anyone there would buck the authority of the President.
Firing Maphwanya would remind people that Ramaphosa is in fact the President, and does have the legal power to act.
And it would be hard to see any kind of political cost to Ramaphosa for doing this. Instead it would look like he is making sure everyone knows that he is in charge.
Maphwanya has not yet explained his side in all of this. But it seems obvious that he went too far, and is making unwise decisions. The position he occupies is critically important.
There is virtually nothing for Ramaphosa to lose here. He should act now. DM