Supra Mahumapelo dares Roets to repeat his farm attack claims under oath

African National Congress (ANC) heavyweight Supra Mahumapelo has challenged Afrikaner activist Ernst Roets to defend his claims about farm attacks and racial discrimination under oath before Parliament, escalating a political confrontation stretching from Pretoria to the corridors of power in Washington.

Mahumapelo, who chairs Parliament’s portfolio committee on international relations and cooperation, issued the challenge on Monday in a blistering response to an October 16 open letter in which Roets accused him and International Relations Minister, Ronald Lamola of threatening the constitutional freedoms of South Africans who lobby foreign governments.

Washington campaign reaches Pretoria

The confrontation follows an international campaign that saw Roets’s organisation, Lex Libertas, erect 3,000 white crosses on Washington’s National Mall in September, commemorating people it identified as victims of farm murders.

The campaign included a conference at Washington’s National Press Club, the release of a documentary examining alleged persecution in South Africa and subsequent discussions with senior White House representatives.

Lex Libertas also announced plans to bring the controversial white-cross display to the Union Buildings in Pretoria, taking its campaign from America’s political backyard to the doorstep of South Africa’s executive government.

But Mahumapelo is demanding something considerably more uncomfortable than another public demonstration: evidence subjected to parliamentary scrutiny.

“Lex Libertas should present its evidence on farm attacks, property rights and transformation legislation under oath, in public and subject to questioning,” he declared.

He insisted that Parliament, rather than a foreign legislature, was the appropriate platform for examining competing claims.

Roets refuses to retreat

Mahumapelo specifically rejected claims of state-sponsored white genocide, arbitrary land seizures and assertions that black economic empowerment justified foreign sanctions.

In his October 16 letter, Roets defended his organisation’s international advocacy concerning farm attacks, political incitement, racial legislation and property rights.

Roets accused Mahumapelo and Lamola of threatening citizens who challenged the ANC’s political narrative, warning that attempts to silence Lex Libertas would produce precisely the opposite result.

“We will not retreat from our international work. We will expand it,” Roets declared.

He challenged the government to identify exactly which statements it considered false and produce evidence, promising to correct demonstrable inaccuracies.

“Government cannot close the door to meaningful engagement and then complain when those standing outside engage elsewhere,” he argued.

Roets maintained that his organisation had repeatedly sought dialogue with government representatives, including Lamola’s office.

Mahumapelo countered that Lex Libertas had never requested an audience with his parliamentary committee.

Citizenship threats and fundraising allegations

The disagreement has also raised constitutional questions after Roets accused political leaders of contemplating treason charges and citizenship-related consequences against South Africans who lobby internationally.

Mahumapelo denied advocating arbitrary deprivation of citizenship, insisting that Parliament was entitled to examine whether existing laws adequately addressed deliberate misinformation intended to harm national interests.

He said:

“My call for consequences was not a call to strip citizenship arbitrarily. It was a call for accountability for misinformation that harms the country.”

He then introduced another provocative dimension, suggesting that portraying the organisation as a victim might serve fundraising interests.

Mahumapelo provided no evidence establishing such a financial motive.

The dispute has consequently become more than a quarrel about farm attacks. It now pits competing interpretations of patriotism, constitutional freedom and international advocacy against each other.

For Roets, Washington offers an international audience for grievances he believes Pretoria refuses to hear.

For Mahumapelo, those grievances must first survive the scrutiny of evidence under oath in South Africa’s own Parliament.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter