A Legal Firestorm That Could Reshape South African Opposition Politics
South Africa’s already volatile political landscape was thrust into fresh turmoil after Gayton McKenzie, leader of the Patriotic Alliance and mayor of the Central Karoo District Municipality, detonated what he described as a “bombshell” disclosure against Economic Freedom Fighters commander-in-chief Julius Malema.
Speaking during an emotionally charged press briefing in Sandton before a packed room of journalists, McKenzie claimed he possesses irrefutable proof that Malema committed perjury by deliberately lying under oath in an affidavit submitted to the Johannesburg High Court in 2023.
The affidavit in question formed part of a civil dispute involving the Economic Freedom Fighters and its funding structures, specifically allegations that foreign donor contributions were not properly disclosed.
Holding up a thick bundle of documents, McKenzie declared that the issue had moved far beyond political rivalry and now struck at the heart of criminal accountability.
According to him, South Africa is being misled by a political leader who, in his words, “looks the nation in the eye and lies—not only to Parliament, but to the courts.”
McKenzie emphasized that perjury is among the most serious offenses under South African law, carrying the possibility of lengthy imprisonment.
He argued that no political leader, regardless of popularity or influence, should be shielded from the consequences of lying under oath.
In framing his disclosure, McKenzie insisted that his actions were not motivated by personal animosity but by a duty to defend the integrity of the legal system and democratic accountability.
At the center of his accusation is Malema’s sworn affidavit found in court records from 2023, in which the EFF leader unequivocally denied any knowledge of foreign funding flowing to the party or to himself personally.
McKenzie insists this denial was knowingly false and strategically crafted to mislead the court.
He rejected any suggestion that the statement could be explained as an innocent mistake or misunderstanding, asserting instead that it constituted a calculated lie designed to conceal the true sources of the EFF’s financial support.
According to McKenzie, the dossier he released was compiled with assistance from whistleblowers allegedly embedded within the EFF, as well as unnamed foreign intelligence-linked sources.
He claims the documents reveal the existence of an offshore trust registered in Mauritius that received millions of rand from a European non-governmental organization known for financing radical political activism in developing countries.
McKenzie alleged that this trust was linked directly to Malema and used as a conduit for undisclosed foreign funding.
McKenzie went further, asserting that the documents in his possession include bank wire transfer confirmations, internal correspondence, and audio recordings that allegedly tie Malema directly to the offshore trust.
He described a pattern in which the EFF publicly presents itself as a grassroots, people-funded movement, while, according to his claims, its leader benefits from undisclosed foreign money.
If proven, McKenzie argued, this would raise profound questions about political sovereignty, transparency, and the integrity of South Africa’s democratic processes, particularly if foreign funds were used to influence domestic political agendas under the banner of revolutionary politics.
Legal analysts cited during the briefing noted that if the documents are authenticated and the allegations substantiated, Malema could face serious criminal exposure.
Potential charges include perjury—which carries a possible sentence of up to ten years in prison—as well as violations of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act and the Prevention of Organized Crime Act.
These statutes are designed to combat illicit financial flows, money laundering, and the concealment of unlawful funding sources.
One legal expert emphasized that lying under oath strikes at the heart of the justice system, while accepting undisclosed foreign political funding would constitute a grave breach of both financial and electoral law.
The controversy escalated sharply later that night when the National Prosecuting Authority confirmed that it had received documentation from McKenzie’s legal team and was in the process of assessing the material.
Sources indicated that a formal investigation could be launched within weeks if the preliminary review finds sufficient merit.
Observers noted that such an investigation would likely involve testimony from financial institutions, cyber security specialists, and potential insiders from within the EFF, setting the stage for one of the most high-profile political prosecutions in post-apartheid South Africa.
The EFF responded swiftly and aggressively, dismissing McKenzie’s claims as a politically motivated smear campaign aimed at undermining both the party and its leader at a critical moment.
In a sharply worded statement, EFF national spokesperson accused McKenzie of lacking credibility and seeking relevance through sensational allegations.
The party insisted that Malema has always acted lawfully and transparently, framing the accusations as part of a broader attack by establishment forces threatened by the EFF’s growing influence and its unapologetic challenge to economic inequality and entrenched power.
The EFF also warned that it was considering legal action against McKenzie for defamation and the alleged unlawful acquisition and dissemination of what it claims are fabricated or doctored documents.
Party officials argued that the allegations were designed to distract from the EFF’s policy agenda and disrupt its momentum ahead of upcoming electoral contests.
Almost immediately, Malema’s supporters mobilized on social media, launching hashtags defending him and accusing McKenzie of acting as a political opportunist or a proxy for powerful interests opposed to radical economic reform.
The rivalry between McKenzie and Malema is long-standing and well documented, marked by years of public insults and bitter exchanges.
McKenzie has repeatedly accused the EFF of exploiting poor communities while its leadership enjoys luxury, while Malema has derided McKenzie as a former gangster aligned with establishment interests.
Despite this history, political analysts argue that the current confrontation is fundamentally different in scale and severity.
Unlike rhetorical sparring, the dispute has now moved squarely into the legal arena, where the stakes are far higher and the outcomes potentially far more consequential.
Addressing the media at the conclusion of his briefing, McKenzie attempted to frame his actions as a principled stand rather than a personal vendetta.
He asserted that South Africa cannot afford leaders who mislead the courts or secretly rely on foreign money to finance political activities that may sow division and instability.
He challenged Malema to clear his name in court if he is innocent, or to face the full consequences of the law if he is not.
Equality before the law, McKenzie emphasized, is a cornerstone of democracy that must apply to all, regardless of political stature.
As the nation absorbs the implications of the allegations, the unfolding saga promises weeks—if not months—of intense legal maneuvering, media battles, and renewed scrutiny of how political parties in South Africa are funded and regulated.
Beyond Malema’s personal political future, the case could have broader implications for transparency in party financing, the regulation of foreign donations, and public trust in both opposition and governing parties.
For many South Africans, the controversy taps into deeper anxieties about accountability, integrity, and the blurred lines between politics and the law.
Whether McKenzie’s claims withstand scrutiny or collapse under legal examination, the episode has already exposed the fragility of trust in political institutions and the combustible nature of rivalry in an era of heightened polarization.
What happens next—particularly the decisions taken by prosecutors and the courts—may not only determine the fate of a prominent opposition leader, but also shape the future standards of honesty, disclosure, and accountability in South African politics.
