Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) leader Julius Malema has once again ignited a fierce and long-standing feud with former African National Congress (ANC) member of Parliament Boy Mamabolo.
This renewed conflict came to public attention during Malema’s appearance on journalist Tshidi Madia’s EWN podcast, where he candidly discussed his views on several political figures, including his former allies Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, Floyd Shivambu, and most notably, Boy Mamabolo.
The exchange revealed deep-seated animosities and personal grievances that have spanned more than a decade, highlighting the turbulent nature of South African political rivalries and the personal dimensions that often underlie public disputes.
During the nearly 90-minute podcast episode, Malema addressed a range of issues but focused much of his attention on a recent insult directed at Mbuyiseni Ndlozi by Sport, Arts, and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie, who also leads the Patriotic Alliance.
McKenzie had previously dismissed Ndlozi’s frequent commentary on education by calling him an “ice boy” during a parliamentary sitting.
Malema condemned this insult but then turned the label back on Boy Mamabolo, whom he described as his actual “ice boy” during their youth.
Malema’s remarks were blunt and dismissive, stating, “Boy Mamabolo was my ice boy.
I used to send him to fetch girls, send him to buy ice, send him to go buy alcohol.
He had no opinion.
Even now he doesn’t have an opinion, so he was useful for such things.
” This statement not only belittled Mamabolo’s political relevance but also underscored the personal nature of their rivalry.
Malema’s comments came shortly after Mamabolo’s failed attempt to register a new political party called Mandela for President, which was declined by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC).
This failure added another layer to the ongoing tensions between the two political figures, with Malema’s remarks seen by many as a direct jab at Mamabolo’s diminishing political influence.
The public feud between Malema and Mamabolo is not a new phenomenon but rather the latest chapter in a saga that has unfolded over many years and has included moments of intense hostility and legal battles.
The animosity between Malema and Mamabolo dates back over a decade, with several notable incidents marking their contentious relationship.
In 2012, Mamabolo publicly burned a mock coffin to celebrate Malema’s expulsion from the ANC Youth League, a symbolic and provocative act that set the tone for their ongoing conflict.
The following year, the feud took a darker turn when Malema laid criminal charges against Mamabolo after receiving a threatening SMS.
The message allegedly contained a disturbing threat to exhume Malema’s mother’s body and dump the remains at his grandmother’s home in Seshego, Limpopo.
Although Mamabolo was later released with a warning, the incident highlighted the bitter and personal nature of their discord.
More recently, tensions flared again during a State of the Nation Address when Mamabolo accused Malema of domestic abuse.
The accusation sparked widespread controversy and was later retracted by Mamabolo, who issued a public apology on social media.
Despite the retraction, Malema and his wife proceeded to file a R2 million defamation lawsuit against Mamabolo.
Additionally, Mamabolo failed to pay R173,000 in legal costs from related litigation in 2020, further complicating their fraught relationship.
These legal entanglements underscore the high stakes and personal animosities involved, with both men willing to engage in protracted legal battles to defend their reputations.
The feud between Malema and Mamabolo is emblematic of the broader fractious nature of South African politics, where personal rivalries often intersect with ideological and party conflicts.
Malema, as the fiery and outspoken leader of the EFF, has cultivated a reputation for confrontational politics and sharp rhetoric, often clashing with former ANC allies and political opponents alike.
Mamabolo, once a member of the ANC, has charted a different course, attempting to establish his political identity outside the dominant party framework.
Their ongoing conflict reflects the challenges of navigating South Africa’s complex political landscape, where loyalty, betrayal, and personal history play significant roles.
Malema’s dismissive characterization of Mamabolo as someone without an opinion who was merely useful for menial tasks during their youth is a strategic attempt to undermine Mamabolo’s credibility and political relevance.
By framing Mamabolo as a figure who has never had an independent voice, Malema seeks to reinforce his own position as a dominant and authoritative political actor.
This tactic is not uncommon in South African politics, where personal attacks and public denigration are often employed to weaken opponents and rally support among followers.
The public nature of their feud also raises questions about the impact of such conflicts on the broader political discourse in South Africa.
While vigorous debate and disagreement are essential components of a healthy democracy, the personalization of political disputes can detract from substantive policy discussions and governance issues.
When political leaders engage in name-calling and personal insults, it risks eroding public trust in political institutions and diverting attention from critical challenges facing the country, such as economic inequality, unemployment, and social justice.
Moreover, the legal battles between Malema and Mamabolo highlight the intersection of politics and the judiciary in South Africa.
Defamation lawsuits, criminal charges, and legal warnings have become tools not only for seeking justice but also for advancing political agendas and settling personal scores.
The use of the legal system in political rivalries underscores the high stakes involved and the lengths to which political figures will go to protect their reputations and influence.
Despite the acrimony, the feud between Malema and Mamabolo also reflects deeper issues related to political identity, loyalty, and ambition.
Both men emerged from the ANC political ecosystem but have since taken divergent paths, with Malema founding the EFF as a radical alternative and Mamabolo attempting to carve out his own political niche.
Their conflict is thus not only personal but also symbolic of broader struggles within South Africa’s political landscape, where former comrades become adversaries in the quest for power and relevance.
As tensions continue to flare, many observers are left wondering whether Mamabolo will strike back in response to Malema’s latest remarks.
Given their history of public confrontations and legal disputes, it is likely that the feud will persist, with each side seeking to assert dominance and discredit the other.
The question remains whether this ongoing battle will yield any constructive outcomes or simply deepen divisions and distract from the pressing issues facing South Africa.
In conclusion, the renewed war of words between Julius Malema and Boy Mamabolo is a vivid illustration of the personal and political complexities that characterize South African politics.
Their feud, marked by decades of hostility, public insults, and legal battles, reveals how personal grievances can shape political dynamics and influence public discourse.
While Malema’s dismissive comments seek to diminish Mamabolo’s stature, the underlying tensions speak to broader themes of loyalty, ambition, and the struggle for political relevance.
As South Africa navigates its democratic journey, it is essential that political leaders prioritize substantive dialogue and governance over personal vendettas.
Only by focusing on the nation’s challenges and fostering respectful debate can South Africa build a more inclusive and effective political system that serves the interests of all its citizens.
