UDM LOGO

Vision

We are the political home of all South Africans, united in the spirit of South Africanism by our common passion for our Country, mobilising the creative power inherent in our rich diversity, towards our transformation into a Winning Nation.

Mission

We will unite South Africans from all communities in a new political home, built on the foundation of the principles and ideals of our National Constitution. To this end we will address poverty and imbalances in our society, inspired by our unifying love of our Country and its people.

Core Values

The Core Values, which the United Democratic Movement will uphold and promote and upon which its fundamental policy positions are based, are as follow : respect for life, dignity and human worth of every individual; integrity in public- and private life; the individual rights and freedoms enshrined in our Country’s Constitution;

President of the UDM

Mr Bantu Holomisa

Major General (Retired) Bantubonke ‘Bantu’ Holomisa co-founded the United Democratic Movement (UDM) on 27 September 1997, and serves as its elected President, which in 2022 celebrated its 25th year of existence. He was again elected as a Member of Parliament in the 2024 National and Provincial Elections and was appointed as the Deputy Minister of Defence and Military Veterans in the Government of National Unity in the 7th Administration in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s cabinet.

He was the Commander of the Transkei Defence Force and Head of the Transkei Government (former independent homeland from 1987 to 1994) up to the first National Elections in South Africa in 1994. He was one of the first two black persons accepted by the South African Army College to do a one-year senior staff course for officers in 1984.

Your voice matters. Unite with us and create a change you want to see.

Meet Our Party Leaders

UDM VICTORIES

UDM Victory on the Campaign for Transparent and Equitable Party Funding

Since its inception, the UDM has advocated for transparency in party funding. The party has aligned itself with the views of organisations like the (now defunct) Institute for Democratic Alternatives in South Africa (Idasa), which recognised that transparency benefits the public interest. At that time, a common trend was for large businesses to donate to parties in government or before elections, often with the expectation of securing government contracts once the party gained power. This practice persisted over the years. For years, the major political parties declined to make their financial records public, fuelling the perception that they were influenced by wealthy donors. Meanwhile, the UDM stood alone, advocating for transparency and consistently pushing for openness regarding party finances. The UDM’s efforts were finally validated in 2019 with the enactment of the Political Party Funding Act. This law mandates parties to disclose donations above a certain threshold from any single donor. It also bars contributions from foreign governments or state entities. Moreover, it strictly regulates donations, specifying that they must be for party political purposes and received by party members on behalf of the party. It’s unfortunate that with the signing of the Electoral Amendment Act on the eve of the 2024 National and Provincial Elections, President Ramaphosa has rolled back many of the gains for our multi-party democracy. This action means that the African National Congress once again receives the largest portion of party funding.

UDM Victory on the the Establishment if the Mpati Commission

In May 2018, the UDM penned a letter to President Ramaphosa and then serving as Deputy Chief Justice, Raymond Zondo, highlighting alleged corruption at the Public Investment Corporation (PIC). The allegations centred on serious corruption, evasion of due diligence, misrepresentation, money laundering, and staff purging (potentially for a cover-up) in PIC deals. These actions posed a significant risk to the Government Employees Pension Fund pensioners and the pensions of government employees. The UDM continued to exert pressure on government by adding information to the original complaint. The UDM’s persistent advocacy on the issue prompted the establishment of the Mpati Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of Impropriety regarding the Public Investment Corporation. This commission was established by presidential proclamation in October 2018. The UDM’s stance was validated by the findings and recommendations of the Mpati Commission, which were released in 2020. As of 2023, the party continues to advocate for the implementation of these recommendations.

UDM Victory on the the NSFAS R2million rental scandal

In February 2023, the UDM uncovered significant wasteful expenditure at the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS). This revelation came at a time when students were experiencing delays in receiving their payments, and some were being denied access to much-needed funds altogether. NSFAS had relocated to a new building using a turn-key solution, resulting in a substantial increase in rental costs. The monthly rent reportedly escalated from R500,000 to R1,968,647.05, despite many offices in the new premises remaining unused. This expenditure was deemed wasteful by the UDM. Furthermore, NSFAS allegedly purchased new furniture for the office space, amounting to millions of rands, instead of utilising existing furniture from their former offices. In light of these findings, the UDM called upon the Hawks and the Special Investigating Unit to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter. The troubles at NSFAS worsened with the removal of CEO Andile Nongogo in October 2023 due to investigations into alleged irregularities. Following this, in April 2024, Ernest Khosa stepped down as chair of the board amidst accusations and counter-accusations of corruption. The situation at NSFAS deteriorated further when the board was dissolved, and an administrator was appointed shortly thereafter. The blame for the mess should be laid squarely at Minister Blade Nzimande’s door.

UDM Open Letters

18 Feb 2026
A call for constitutional refinement of the Hate Speech Act prior to commencement
Mr MC Ramaphosa President of the Republic of South Africa Private Bag X1000 Pretoria 0001 Dear Mister President  A call for constitutional refinement of the Hate Speech Act prior to commencement 1.    The United Democratic Movement (UDM) writes to you with deep respect for the constitutional office you hold, and with equal seriousness regarding the constitutional implications of the Prevention ofa Hate Crimes and Combating of Hate Speech Act, 2023 (‘the Act’). 2.    We had intended to address this matter more fully during the SONA 2026 debate yesterday. However, due to the limited time allocated in the House, the UDM was unable to place our detailed constitutional concerns on record.  3.    Given the significance of this legislation and its far-reaching implications, we believe the matter warrants fuller public and parliamentary engagement. It is for this reason that we now write to you directly, to place these concerns before the Head of State and to respectfully seek your consideration. 4.    The UDM supports without reservation the protection of human dignity and equality, and a firm response to genuine hatred, incitement to violence, and discrimination. South Africa’s painful history demands vigilance against racism, xenophobia, and all forms of dehumanisation. However, in seeking to protect dignity, the State must take equal care not to erode the foundational freedoms that define our constitutional democracy. 5.    It is our considered view that the Act, in its current form, goes beyond what section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution permits. South Africa already possesses effective legal mechanisms to address genuine hate speech and incitement, including common law offences and civil remedies under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), as affirmed and clarified by the Constitutional Court. The introduction of broad criminal sanctions, including imprisonment, therefore represents a significant and unnecessary expansion of state power over expression. 6.    Of particular concern is the reliance on concepts that are either undefined or insufficiently defined in a criminal statute. The Act refers to hatred, emotional harm, social harm described as undermining social cohesion, and economic harm without providing the precision required for criminal liability. It further expands protected grounds to include gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics without statutory definitions, despite these being contested and evolving concepts in public discourse. In criminal law, vagueness is not a minor technical flaw. Citizens must be able to know clearly and predictably where the line between lawful expression and criminal conduct is drawn. 7.    The implications for freedom of religion are especially serious. Faith-based organisations across the country have expressed anxiety that sincerely held religious beliefs, particularly on contested moral and social questions, may expose religious leaders and communities to prosecution or vexatious complaints. Religious freedom is not merely the freedom to believe privately. It includes the freedom to teach, preach, and publicly articulate doctrine without fear of criminal sanction. The current religious exemption clause is widely regarded within civil society as weak and circular, offering little practical protection against overreach. 8.    Civil society organisations, including faith-based bodies representing diverse traditions, have consistently emphasised that international law does not require automatic criminalisation of hate speech in the expansive form adopted by the Act. The United Nations Rabat Plan of Action  underscores that criminal sanctions should be a measure of last resort and subject to a high threshold. Many within civil society believe the present Act lowers that threshold in a manner that risks a chilling effect on lawful religious, moral, and public discourse. 9.    The UDM does not seek to weaken protections against genuine hatred or incitement. Rather, we seek to ensure that dignity and equality are defended in a manner that is constitutionally sound, proportionate, and precise. Equality cannot be advanced by eroding freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Our constitutional order requires that these rights exist in principled balance. 10.    We therefore respectfully urge that the Act be subjected to urgent constitutional review and aligned appropriately before it is brought into operation. While the Act has been assented to and promulgated, it has not yet been brought into operation, and this presents a narrow but important window of opportunity for corrective legislative alignment before constitutional uncertainty hardens into litigation.  11.    Specifically, we call for alignment of the definition of hate speech with section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution, the provision of clear statutory definitions of hatred and harm with an appropriately high criminal threshold, the removal or tightening of vague and undefined concepts, and the strengthening of the religious exemption clause to ensure meaningful protection for bona fide religious expression. 12.    In the spirit of cooperative governance and constructive constitutionalism, the UDM is also preparing a Private Member’s Bill to assist Parliament in addressing the identified defects. Our intention is not to dilute protections against genuine hatred or incitement, but to ensure that the legislation reflects a principled and constitutionally sound balance between dignity, equality, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. 13.    Your Excellency, South Africa’s democracy was built on the protection of both dignity and liberty. We trust that under your leadership, legislation that touches so directly on the freedoms of conscience, religion, belief, and expression will be carefully refined to withstand constitutional scrutiny and to preserve the delicate equilibrium upon which our democratic order rests. 14.    We remain committed to constructive engagement in this regard. Yours sincerely Deputy Minister Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement Copied to:         •    Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP, UDM Deputy President and Leader in Parliament •    Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA)  
03 Dec 2025
R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s appearance at the Standing Committee on Finance – further issues and pertinent questions that need to be asked of the PIC
Dr Mkhacani Maswanganyi, MP Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 Dear Dr Maswanganyi R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s appearance at the Standing Committee on Finance – further issues and pertinent questions that need to be asked of the PIC 1. Further to my correspondence dated 10 November 2025 , in which you were copied, I understand that the Standing Committee on Finance (SCOF) is scheduled to receive a report from the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) on 5 December 2025. 2. In regard, I wish to refer SCOF to my correspondence to the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr MC Ramaphosa and the Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA), Mr Songezo Zibi, MP, which I attach for your ease of refence: 2.1. On 29 October 2025 regarding: “R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s governance collapse demands action ” and 2.2. on 8 November 2025 regarding: “Renewed concerns over probable governance irregularities and conflicts of interest at the Public Investment Corporation: the PIC’s confused(ing) rhetoric regarding the Lanseria and FlySafair deals” . 3. I understand from the SCOPA Chairperson Zibi, that he has referred the entire matter concerning the PIC, as submitted by the UDM, to SCOF for further consideration, as SCOPA is currently engaged in the Road Accident Fund inquiry and both committees share several members. 4. In addition to the above, there have been further developments which I wish to bring to SCOF’s attention, and I refer the Committee to the following documents attached for ease of reference: 4.1. A 30 October 2025 correspondence from Mabotja Attorneys on behalf of Acapulco Trade & Invest 164 (Pty) Ltd, dated 30 October 2025, regarding “FORMAL CLARIFICATION & REPRESENTATION IN RESPECT OF THE LANSERIA HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD TRANSACTION.” as well as a 4.2. 7 October 2025 correspondence from Mabotja Attorneys to Werksmans Attorneys, acting on behalf of the PIC, regarding: “LANSERIA AND RELATED MATTERS”, 5. For additional context to the bigger scheme of things, I refer to an article published in the Business Day of 5 November 2025 entitled” “PIC furious over R400m payout to Lanseria BEE partner” 6. Given the context outlined in all the UDM’s correspondence and the article referenced above, it is evident that SCOF will need to conduct a thorough and far-reaching investigation into the broader operations of the PIC, particularly its dealings involving PAIDF I and II and the investment of Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) funds. The arbitration award in favour of Acapulco, dated 17 September 2025 and amounting to R411 282 264.44, has clearly unsettled matters and exposed deeper issues within the PIC’s governance and investment practices. 7. Further to points 5 and 6 in my letter of 29 October 2025 concerning the Lanseria Airport Holdings and FlySafair matters, the UDM recommends that SCOF pose the following questions to PIC: 7.1. Management fees 7.1.1. Would you state, for the record, the total management fees Harith has drawn from PAIDF I, PAIDF II, and the newly constituted Harith Infraco? 7.1.2. Can you provide a detailed breakdown of those fees by fund, year, and category? 7.2. Fund performance 7.2.1. Provide a comprehensive summary of the financial and operational performance of PAIDF I and PAIDF II. 7.2.2. What were the key value drivers, impairments, exits, and realised or unrealised returns associated with each fund? 7.3. Value created for pensioners 7.3.1. Based on your own reporting and audited figures, how much net value, after all fees, costs, and adjustments i.e. have these funds generated for South African pensioners? 7.3.2. Are you able to confirm whether the net contribution has been positive, neutral, or negative? 7.4. Restructuring and recapitalisation 7.4.1. Harith has recently undertaken what appears to be restructuring, recapitalisation, and redesign of its funds. 7.4.2. Would you explain the commercial rationale for each of these steps? 7.4.3. What direct impact did these actions have on the value of the underlying investments and, specifically, on the stake ultimately attributable to the GEPF? 7.5. Harith Infraco participation 7.5.1. In the newly established Harith Infraco, what is the direct interest, shareholding percentage, or participation in returns attributable to the GEPF? 7.5.2. Has this position changed in any way compared to the GEPF’s prior participation in PAIDF I or II? 7.6. PCV creation and GEPF impact 7.6.1. Regarding the creation of the PCV, could you confirm whether the GEPF incurred any losses, impairments, write-downs, or adverse valuation adjustments from a pure accounting or profitability standpoint? 7.6.2. If so, please detail the amounts and their basis. 7.7. DBSA involvement 7.7.1. Was the DBSA at any stage an investor, lender, or creditor to any Harith-managed fund or to any of the portfolio companies within those funds? 7.7.2. If yes, please specify the nature and quantum of that exposure. 7.8. Pending applications for funding 7.8.1. Does Harith currently have any pending applications and whether for funding, refinancing, restructuring, or borrowing, before the PIC or GEPF? 7.8.2. If so, would you kindly identify each application and indicate its current status?   8. The Thabiso Moshikara scandal in July 2025 8.1. Further I point to 7.3 in my letter of 29 October 2025, regarding the above the UDM would suggest that SCOF ask the following questions of the PIC based further on “Levoca reaffirms its commitment to ethical business practices and remains committed to connecting our communities with fast internet access and bridging the digital divide in South Africa” 8.1.1. The Metrofibre Investment Funding of Levoca was stated in the Annual Financial Report of 2024 of the GEPF as having profited the PIC/GEPF just over R100 million in the span of one year. Why was this deal cancelled, and why were the shares seized for the alleged R1,170.00 postage and stamp fees of Bowmans Attorneys on a deal worth over R1.4 billion? 8.1.2. A case of fraud and corruption has been opened against PIC Head of Legal Lindiwe Masina Dlamini on 07 August 2025, under case number 2025-08-07 at MIDRAND Station, reference number CAS 205/8/2025, by a PIC 8.1.3. whistleblower. The case has now been referred to the Hawks. Why has she not been suspended if Mr Thabiso Moshikara was suspended under the same circumstances? 8.1.4. Who in the PIC authorised the granting of a R1.4 billion legal indemnity to the privately owned company Metrofibre against another private company, Levoca 805, in pursuit of trying to recoup a mere R1,170.00 following the R3 million bribe allegations? 8.1.5. Is this not biased and proof that Levoca was being punished for not wanting to pay Mr Moshikara the R3 million bribe? 8.1.6. It is stated in a civil matter paper between PIC and Levoca 805 that the R1,170 invoice was erroneous or fraudulently issued, which supports the fact that the PIC is lacking a legitimate trigger event. Furthermore, the R1,170 was eventually settled by Levoca, yet the PIC still proceeded to seize Levoca’s shares worth R1.4 billion for R1,170. Why is the PIC still proceeding to seize the shares even after the R1,170, which it relied upon, was settled by Levoca, particularly in an investment that is profiting our government pensioners over R100 million per annum? 8.1.7. What is the current status of this matter? Where does it stand now? Have the shares been returned to Levoca, and if not, why not? 8.1.8. Is the PIC attempting to punish the whistleblower by seizing Levoca’s shares for R1,170? 8.1.9. Does this not sound like corrupt, prejudicial, and oppressive conduct to unlawfully seize Levoca's shares by the PIC as a result of Levoca refusing to pay a R3 million bribe to Mr Moshikara, Head of the Isibaya Fund at the PIC?   9. The Isibaya Fund 9.1. The Isibaya Fund continues to be the centre of corruption within the PIC. Despite the clear warnings of the Mpati Commission, no meaningful reforms have been implemented. This unlisted investment portfolio still operates with poor oversight, secretive decision-making, and transactions that favour politically connected individuals. 9.2. Ultimately, the people who have dedicated their careers to public service are not the true beneficiaries of this fund. It has effectively become a pool of capital reserved for a privileged few, often distributed without proper risk evaluation, exposing the PIC to substantial financial losses and betraying the trust of millions of workers whose pensions are at stake. 9.3. A credit loss ratio exceeding 39% is indefensible and reflects an alarming level of financial mismanagement. No credible institution would tolerate such extensive losses under the guise of economic empowerment. 9.4. Complex financial structures and contractual arrangements have been deliberately used to conceal the extent of this looting. Few fully understand the intricate deal-making mechanisms that enable it, but it is clear that something even more insidious than State Capture continues to thrive within the PIC.   9.5. Given persistent governance failures, it is essential to ask whether the Isibaya Fund should remain under the control of the PIC at all. A more prudent course would be to transfer its developmental and impact investment mandate to institutions with proven governance systems and sectoral expertise, such as the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) or the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC). These entities are far better placed to ensure sound project evaluation, transparency, and accountability. The PIC’s role could then be confined to allocating funds under DBSA or IDC supervision, or outsourcing mandates to qualified independent managers operating under strict risk and performance controls. Unless this reform is undertaken, corruption and instability will persist, and no commission of inquiry will be able to restore confidence or integrity to the system. 10. The UDM reiterates its firm belief that safeguarding public pension funds is a matter of national priority. Urgent intervention is required to ensure that the Public Investment Corporation is never exploited as an instrument of political patronage, and that the more than R3 trillion in assets under its management are administered with the utmost integrity, professionalism, and accountability. Yours sincerely Deputy Minister Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement   Copied to: • Mr Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa – President of the Republic of South Africa • Mr Enoch Godongwana, MP - Minister of Finance • Dr David Masondo, MP - Deputy Minister of Finance and Chairperson of the Board of the Public Investment Corporation • Ms Thoko Didiza, MP - Speaker of the National Assembly of South Africa • Mr Songezo Zibi, MP - Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts • Mr Patrick Dlamini - Chief Executive Officer, Public Investment Corporation • Mr Musa Mabesa - Principal Executive Officer, Government Employees Pension Fund • Ms Tsakani Maluleke - Auditor-General of South Africa • Adv Andy Mothibi - Head of the Special Investigating Unit • Mr Eric Mabuza – Mabuza Attorneys   • Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP -UDM Deputy President and Leader in Parliament • Ms Thandi Nontenja, MP – UDM Chief Whip in the National Assembly and Member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts    
10 Nov 2025
Report back: R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s governance collapse in the Lanseria Airport Holdings deal and other governance issues
Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP UDM Deputy President and Leader in Parliament PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 and Ms Thandi Nontenja, MP UDM National Treasurer and Chief Whip in the National Assembly Member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts PO Box 15 Cape Town 8000 Dear Mr Kwankwa and Ms Nontenja Report back: R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s governance collapse in the Lanseria Airport Holdings deal and other governance issues 1.    I hereby request that you prepare the United Democratic Movement’s (UDM) parliamentary operations to address the issues outlined in this letter, with particular focus on the Party’s participation in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) and the Standing Committee on Finance, and to begin gathering relevant information.  I have already instructed Attorney Eric Mabuza of Mabuza Attorneys to obtain key information from Mr Patrick Dlamini, Chief Executive Officer of the Public Investment Corporation (PIC), as reflected in the attached correspondence. 2.    On 29 October 2025, the UDM addressed a detailed letter to the President of the Republic, Mr Cyril Ramaphosa, and the SCOPA Chairperson, Mr Songezo Zibi, MP, under the subject “R3.5 trillion at risk: the Public Investment Corporation’s governance collapse demands action.” In that correspondence, I highlighted the grave risks posed by a series of recent and questionable transactions undertaken by the PIC, which endanger more than R3.5 trillion in pensioners’ funds, alongside widespread governance, ethical, and oversight failures within the institution. As you are aware, the UDM has already proposed several urgent interventions in that letter to address these systemic failures.  3.    On 5 November 2025, the PIC Corporate Affairs Division, in the name of the PIC Board Chairperson and Deputy Minister of Finance, Dr David Masondo, issued a statement appeared designed to undermine the UDM’s position. 4.    As a matter of interest, Deputy Minister Masondo contacted me, on the same day, personally after the statement was issued, distancing himself from its content and expressing concern about the manner in which the PIC had treated me. It appears that the statement was drafted within the PIC as a deliberate smokescreen and an attempt to deflect public attention from the Lanseria Airport Holdings deal by going on the offensive. Yet, in doing so, the PIC conceded that “…a legal review on the arbitration proceedings is underway…,” which only reinforces the view that where there is smoke, there is indeed fire. Why attack the UDM and me personally instead of providing a substantive response to each of the issues we raised in our letter of 29 October 2025? 5.    On 8 November 2025, I again wrote to President Ramaphosa and SCOPA Chairperson Songezo Zibi, specifically concerning: 5.1.    A letter from Werksmans Attorneys to Mabotja Attorneys titled: “PUBLIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION SOC LIMITED // ACAPULCO TRADE AND INVEST 164(RF) (PTY) LTD” dated 6 November 2025 and 5.2.    Mabotja Attorneys’ response to the above entitled.: “LANSERIA AND RELATED MATTERS” of 7 November 2025. 5.3.    In its correspondence, Werksmans Attorneys, acting on behalf of the PIC, wrote to Mabotja Attorneys, who represent Acapulco Trade and Invest 164 (Pty) Ltd, concerning the aftermath of an arbitration award in favour of Acapulco dated 17 September 2025, amounting to R411 282 264.44. The letter indicates that the PIC intends to review or challenge the award and has requested that the funds already deposited in Mabotja Attorneys’ trust account be frozen pending the outcome of that review. 5.4.    In reply, Mabotja Attorneys issued a strongly worded and defensive response aimed at discrediting Werksmans Attorneys’ letter on behalf of the PIC and portraying Acapulco as the aggrieved party. The exchange highlights growing tension between Acapulco, Mr Patrick Dlamini, and Harith General Partners and its founder, Mr Tshepo Mahloele, who appears to be a key figure at the centre of the dispute. 6.    What prompted Mr Dlamini to act so suddenly? Was it his own initiative, or did the PIC Board finally intervene in a last-minute attempt to salvage what remains of the institution’s credibility and reputation? 7.    There appears to be a significant fallout between the PIC and Acapulco Trade and Invest 164 (Pty) Ltd, the BEE partner in the Lanseria Airport Holdings deal. Despite Acapulco having defaulted on a R333 million loan, which grew to approximately R600 million with interest, the PIC nevertheless proceeded to pay just over R411 million to Acapulco after an arbitration process upheld a contested valuation conducted by Crowe, a so-called external valuer. This payout has reportedly angered the PIC Board, which has since moved to freeze the funds and is said to be considering legal action. These developments point to growing internal discord within the PIC and raise serious concerns about a potential governance collapse within the institution. Why did the Mr Dlamini and his executive team approve this transaction in the first place if they are now raising alarm after the fact? 8.    Mr Dlamini’s professional history continues to raise serious governance concerns. In Mabotja Attorneys’ letter of 7 November 2025, it is alleged that he has maintained a close personal and professional relationship with Mr Mahloele and Harith General Partners, including attending a celebratory gathering at Mr Mahloele’s Bryanston home shortly after his appointment as PIC CEO.  This allegation adds to a pattern first documented during his tenure as CEO of the Development Bank of Southern Africa, when serious accusations of mismanagement, maladministration and possible corruption the UDM brought to the attention of SCOPA in October 2020. At that time, concerns were raised about his association with Mr Mahloele and Harith, particularly around the Poseidon funding matter and other questionable transactions that appeared to benefit politically connected entities.  Now, as head of the PIC, the same allegations of conflict of interest, irregular investment decisions and weak governance have resurfaced, most notably in the Lanseria Airport Holdings and FlySafair dealings involving Harith-linked interests. This recurring pattern points to an entrenched network of influence between public finance institutions and private business interests that requires urgent and independent investigation. 9.    In its letter of 29 October 2025, the UDM made two key recommendations: 9.1.    That SCOPA convene urgent public hearings with the PIC Board, the Chief Executive Officer, and the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) to account for ongoing governance failures, ethical breaches, and poor investment decisions. 9.2.    That the Auditor-General and the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) conduct a forensic audit of the Isibaya Fund and the Unlisted Investments Division, with a particular focus on politically connected transactions, loss-making projects, and compliance with the recommendations of the Mpati Commission. The Lanseria transaction, which was initiated in 2013, must be included in the scope of investigation as this appears to be where the shenanigans first began. Questions remain about the servicing of the loan through dividends. Were any ever declared by the Government Employees Pension Fund, the PIC, Acapulco, or Harith General Partners? 10.    Equally concerning is the reported involvement of Harith General Partners in raising funds to acquire a stake in FlySafair. It is important to recall that the UDM previously intervened to stop the South African Airways (SAA) transaction after informing President Ramaphosa and then Minister of Public Enterprises Pravin Gordhan, following Gordhan’s 11 June 2021 announcement that the Takatso Consortium, led in part by Harith General Partners owned by Mr Tshepo Mahloele, had been selected as the preferred bidder to acquire a 51% stake in SAA for R51.  11.    A further and deeply troubling conflict of interest arises from the fact that Mr Dlamini previously served as Chairperson of the Lanseria Airport Holdings Board  while simultaneously holding senior public office. According to the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) website, he still remains listed as a Non-Executive Director of Lanseria Holdings (K2012204048), Lanseria Airport 1993 (M1993004101), Lanseria Airport Investments (M2002025907) and Lanseria International Airport (M1991001749).  His continued association with these entities, which have direct financial dealings with the PIC, raises serious questions about the independence and propriety of decisions taken under his leadership. This dual involvement suggests that Mr Dlamini may have had access to privileged information regarding the airport’s operations and valuation, both before and after the disputed PIC investment. When considered alongside the issues raised in Mabotja Attorneys’ letter concerning his relationship with Harith General Partners and its founder, Mr Tshepo Mahloele, this overlap of roles points to a possible conflict of interest that warrants urgent scrutiny by the relevant oversight bodies. Now, the same players appear to be seeking to use public funds for private investment ventures. We have not forgotten the Mpati Commission’s damning findings against these entities.  12.    The Auditor-General, acting under the auspices of SCOPA, remains the only credible authority capable of conducting a comprehensive review of the Lanseria deal and related transactions, given that public money is once again at stake. 13.    The UDM should maintain its position that safeguarding public pension funds is a matter of national importance. It is imperative that decisive intervention takes place to ensure the PIC is never exploited as a vehicle for political patronage, and that the more than R3 trillion in assets under its management are administered with the highest levels of integrity, professionalism, and accountability. Yours sincerely Deputy Minister Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement Copied to: •    Mr Matamela Cyril Ramaphosa – President of the Republic of South Africa •    Mr Enoch Godongwana, MP - Minister of Finance •    Dr David Masondo, MP - Deputy Minister of Finance and Chairperson of the Board of the Public Investment Corporation •    Ms Thoko Didiza, MP - Speaker of the National Assembly of South Africa •    Mr Songezo Zibi, MP - Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts •    Dr Mkhacani Maswanganyi, MP - Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Finance •    Mr Patrick Dlamini - Chief Executive Officer, Public Investment Corporation •    Mr Musa Mabesa - Principal Executive Officer, Government Employees Pension Fund •    Ms Tsakani Maluleke - Auditor-General of South Africa •    Adv Andy Mothibi - Head of the Special Investigating Unit •    Mr Eric Mabuza – Mabuza Attorneys  
40k+

Total Volunteer

23k+

Campaigns

35k+

Vote Paper

66k+

Coverage Area

Shorts Spotlight

Contribute For Us

Make A Donation For Your Country

The United Democratic Movement (UDM) has worked diligently to promote the interests of all South Africans over the years. Despite the challenges and stumbling blocks the party rose to the occasion and scored many political victories. Our successes are manifested in our public representation at various levels of government across the country, but also in the influence we have had irrespective of the ruling party’s parliamentary majority.

The UDM’s vision is to be “…the political home of all South Africans, united in the spirit of South Africanism by our common passion for our Country, mobilising the creative power inherent in our rich diversity, towards our transformation into a Winning Nation”.

Latest News & Articles

State of the Nation Address 2026 debate in the NCOP

State of the Nation Address 2026 debate in the NCOP

Speech for Mr MM Peter, MP and Member of the NCOP for the United Democratic Movement at the State of the Nation Address 2026 debate CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY Honourable Speaker Honourable Members The United Democratic Movement (UDM) supports the State of the Nation Address as tabled by His Excellency, President Ramaphosa. But support does not mean silence. In the true interest of serving the people of South Africa, we rise to sharpen, strengthen and submit proposals that move this nation from promise to performance. 1.    No country survives without law Mr President, on the issue of illegal immigrants, the UDM wishes to comment as follows - no country can function if its laws are optional, and anyone who comes to this country legally must be prepared to abide by the law or they will be shipped out.  Fellow South Africans, you deserve a state that works, systems that speak to each other, and early warning mechanisms that stop crime before it spreads. Without accurate Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA) registration, South African Revenue Service (SARS) cannot collect revenue from all traders operating in our economy. Furthermore, law enforcement cannot properly trace or dismantle criminal syndicates operating in the underworld. South Africa urgently needs a coordinated security response plan with time frames and the strengthening of the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) as to be functional. South Africa’s liberation history teaches us solidarity. But protection must be credible and enforceable.  If a person is granted asylum yet voluntarily returns to the very country they claim to be fleeing during holiday season, that status must be reviewed. You cannot be in danger today and on holiday tomorrow. Accountability is not hostility. It is fairness. It is security. It is sovereignty. 2.    Skills development: from training to productivity We welcome the review of the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) as a corrective measure to ensure that skills funding delivers measurable results. Within the Department of Defence, the South African National Service Institute (SANSI) recently passed out over 500 young people. Mr President, do consider ring-fencing and redirecting SETA funding towards: •    Funding into structured, outcome-based programmes such as SANSI. •    Standardised study guides in mathematics, languages, accounting and entrepreneurship. •    Mandatory practical and technical skill components. In 2001, Deputy Minister Holomisa, Matt Matthys, a maths teacher, Chantel Mulder, then Chief Executive Officer of the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA), and the then President of SAICA, Ignatius Sehoole spearheaded the Thuthuka Project, providing English, Mathematics, and Accounting study guides for Grades 9 to 12. Today, that project has produced over 2,000 Black Chartered Accountants. We may need to have a tailor made, or similar setup into skills development. 3.    Public Investment Corporation:  Mr President, in 2023 you called on the Minister of Finance to address the pension queries of former civil servants. The affected community is still waiting for feedback and progress reports. People are dying while the system drags its feet, and each day of delay is a day of injustice. It is even more painful to see that the funds meant to secure these pensions are being looted by the elite through the Isibaya Fund at the Public Investment Corporation (PIC). Resources meant for ordinary South Africans are being diverted to enrich a few, deepening inequality and betraying public trust. How we wish that money could instead be invested in South Africa’s infrastructure, generating real returns for the country and creating jobs. This is a guaranteed investment in the nation, not in private greed. The people deserve accountability and action, not corruption. I thank you.  

A call for constitutional refinement of the Hate Speech Act prior to commencement

A call for constitutional refinement of the Hate Speech Act prior to commencement

Mr MC Ramaphosa President of the Republic of South Africa Private Bag X1000 Pretoria 0001 Dear Mister President  A call for constitutional refinement of the Hate Speech Act prior to commencement 1.    The United Democratic Movement (UDM) writes to you with deep respect for the constitutional office you hold, and with equal seriousness regarding the constitutional implications of the Prevention ofa Hate Crimes and Combating of Hate Speech Act, 2023 (‘the Act’). 2.    We had intended to address this matter more fully during the SONA 2026 debate yesterday. However, due to the limited time allocated in the House, the UDM was unable to place our detailed constitutional concerns on record.  3.    Given the significance of this legislation and its far-reaching implications, we believe the matter warrants fuller public and parliamentary engagement. It is for this reason that we now write to you directly, to place these concerns before the Head of State and to respectfully seek your consideration. 4.    The UDM supports without reservation the protection of human dignity and equality, and a firm response to genuine hatred, incitement to violence, and discrimination. South Africa’s painful history demands vigilance against racism, xenophobia, and all forms of dehumanisation. However, in seeking to protect dignity, the State must take equal care not to erode the foundational freedoms that define our constitutional democracy. 5.    It is our considered view that the Act, in its current form, goes beyond what section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution permits. South Africa already possesses effective legal mechanisms to address genuine hate speech and incitement, including common law offences and civil remedies under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA), as affirmed and clarified by the Constitutional Court. The introduction of broad criminal sanctions, including imprisonment, therefore represents a significant and unnecessary expansion of state power over expression. 6.    Of particular concern is the reliance on concepts that are either undefined or insufficiently defined in a criminal statute. The Act refers to hatred, emotional harm, social harm described as undermining social cohesion, and economic harm without providing the precision required for criminal liability. It further expands protected grounds to include gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics without statutory definitions, despite these being contested and evolving concepts in public discourse. In criminal law, vagueness is not a minor technical flaw. Citizens must be able to know clearly and predictably where the line between lawful expression and criminal conduct is drawn. 7.    The implications for freedom of religion are especially serious. Faith-based organisations across the country have expressed anxiety that sincerely held religious beliefs, particularly on contested moral and social questions, may expose religious leaders and communities to prosecution or vexatious complaints. Religious freedom is not merely the freedom to believe privately. It includes the freedom to teach, preach, and publicly articulate doctrine without fear of criminal sanction. The current religious exemption clause is widely regarded within civil society as weak and circular, offering little practical protection against overreach. 8.    Civil society organisations, including faith-based bodies representing diverse traditions, have consistently emphasised that international law does not require automatic criminalisation of hate speech in the expansive form adopted by the Act. The United Nations Rabat Plan of Action  underscores that criminal sanctions should be a measure of last resort and subject to a high threshold. Many within civil society believe the present Act lowers that threshold in a manner that risks a chilling effect on lawful religious, moral, and public discourse. 9.    The UDM does not seek to weaken protections against genuine hatred or incitement. Rather, we seek to ensure that dignity and equality are defended in a manner that is constitutionally sound, proportionate, and precise. Equality cannot be advanced by eroding freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Our constitutional order requires that these rights exist in principled balance. 10.    We therefore respectfully urge that the Act be subjected to urgent constitutional review and aligned appropriately before it is brought into operation. While the Act has been assented to and promulgated, it has not yet been brought into operation, and this presents a narrow but important window of opportunity for corrective legislative alignment before constitutional uncertainty hardens into litigation.  11.    Specifically, we call for alignment of the definition of hate speech with section 16(2)(c) of the Constitution, the provision of clear statutory definitions of hatred and harm with an appropriately high criminal threshold, the removal or tightening of vague and undefined concepts, and the strengthening of the religious exemption clause to ensure meaningful protection for bona fide religious expression. 12.    In the spirit of cooperative governance and constructive constitutionalism, the UDM is also preparing a Private Member’s Bill to assist Parliament in addressing the identified defects. Our intention is not to dilute protections against genuine hatred or incitement, but to ensure that the legislation reflects a principled and constitutionally sound balance between dignity, equality, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. 13.    Your Excellency, South Africa’s democracy was built on the protection of both dignity and liberty. We trust that under your leadership, legislation that touches so directly on the freedoms of conscience, religion, belief, and expression will be carefully refined to withstand constitutional scrutiny and to preserve the delicate equilibrium upon which our democratic order rests. 14.    We remain committed to constructive engagement in this regard. Yours sincerely Deputy Minister Bantu Holomisa, MP President of the United Democratic Movement Copied to:         •    Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP, UDM Deputy President and Leader in Parliament •    Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA)  

State of the Nation Address 2026 debate by Bantu Holomisa

State of the Nation Address 2026 debate by Bantu Holomisa

Speech for Deputy Minister Bantu Holomisa, MP and President of the United Democratic Movement at the State of the Nation Address 2026 debate CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY Honourable Speaker Honourable Members The Government of National Unity (GNU) will not be judged by the promises tabled during the opening of Parliament, but by whether that skeletal plan is implemented with urgency, discipline and measurable results.  South Africans have heard plans before. What they demand now is execution. 1.    Security is the foundation of development The State of the Nation Address (SONA) emphasised economic recovery and energy stability, but sustainable growth also depends on protecting our environment and critical infrastructure from vandalism, illegal mining and sabotage that damage ecosystems and investor confidence.  We are strengthening enforcement, deploying coordinated security and accelerating prosecutions because environmental protection, stability and growth are inseparable. The GNU further recognises that development cannot flourish without security. We therefore welcome: •    The deployment of the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) in support of South African Police Service (SAPS) in crime epicentres such as the Cape Flats and the broader Western Cape, and areas such as Randfontein in Gauteng. •    The elevation of the security cluster as a national priority. •    The use of Artificial Intelligence-driven systems for predictive policing and intelligence coordination. In line with the orders issued by the Commander-in-Chief, President Ramaphosa, I confirm that the Department of Defence is seized with operational requirements to support stabilisation interventions in consultation with the security cluster. This is just phase one of restoring normality. 2.    Crime and consequences: the era of impunity is over Mqwathi, mandikuqinisekise amasela ixesha lawo liphelile. Yekani ii Law Enforcement Agencies zenze umsebenzi wazo, singaphazanyiswa.  The honeymoon is over. Corruption and maladministration have not merely touched the state, they have engulfed it, reaching even into our law enforcement agencies. The rot did not spare the Department of Defence either.  That is why we acknowledge the President’s decision to sign the proclamation authorising the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) to investigate these matters and more.  Accountability cannot be selective. It must be decisive and it must reach everywhere. At a briefing to the Portfolio Committee and Joint Standing Committee on Defence, the SIU, the Military Police, and the Hawks assured us that we have recovered over R1.6 billion linked to corruption and mismanagement within Defence.  This is just a start of restoring the image of our defence force. That is consequence management in action. If Special Courts could be established by the Department of Justice in partnership with the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), this will assist to accelerate the resolution of all pending military cases. Crime and corruption embarrass this country. They damage investor confidence. They weaken sovereignty. We have no choice but to confronting them head-on. 3.    No country survives without law No country can function if its laws are optional, and anyone who comes to this country legally must be prepared to abide by the law or they will be shipped out.  Fellow South Africans, you deserve a state that works, systems that speak to each other, and early warning mechanisms that stop crime before it spreads. Without accurate Financial Intelligence Centre Act (FICA) registration, South African Revenue Service (SARS) cannot collect revenue from all traders operating in our economy. Furthermore, law enforcement cannot properly trace or dismantle criminal syndicates operating in the underworld. South Africa urgently needs a coordinated security response plan with time frames and the strengthening of the NPA as to be functional. South Africa’s liberation history teaches us solidarity. But protection must be credible and enforceable.  If a person is granted asylum yet voluntarily returns to the very country they claim to be fleeing during holiday season, that status must be reviewed. You cannot be in danger today and on holiday tomorrow. Accountability is not hostility. It is fairness. It is security. It is sovereignty. 4.    The Public Investment Corporation  Mr President, in 2023 you called on the Minister of Finance to address the pension queries of former civil servants. The affected community is still waiting for feedback and progress reports. People are dying while the system drags its feet, and each day of delay is a day of injustice. It is even more painful to see that the funds meant to secure these pensions are being looted by the elite through the Isibaya Fund at the Public Investment Corporation. Resources meant for ordinary South Africa are being diverted to enrich a few, deepening inequality and betraying public trust. How we wish that money could instead be invested in South Africa’s infrastructure, generating real returns for the country and creating jobs. This is a guaranteed investment in the nation, not in private greed. The people deserve accountability and action, not corruption. 5.    Skills development: from training to productivity We welcome the review of the Sector Education and Training Authorities (SETAs) as a corrective measure to ensure that skills funding delivers measurable results. Within Defence, the South African National Service Institute (SANSI) recently passed out over 500 young people. Mr President, do consider ring-fencing and redirecting SETA funding towards: •    Funding into structured, outcome-based programmes such as SANSI. •    Standardised study guides in mathematics, languages, accounting and entrepreneurship. •    Mandatory practical and technical skill components. In 2001, Matt Matthys, Chantal Mulder, the President South African Institute of Chartered Accountants (SAICA), Ignatius Sehoole, and I spearheaded the Thuthuka Project, providing English, Mathematics, and Accounting study guides for Grades 9 to 12. Today, that project has produced over 2,000 Black Chartered Accountants. We may need to have a tailor-made, or similar setup into skills development. 6.    Prevention of Hate Crimes and Combating of Hate Speech Act The Prevention of Hate Crimes and Combating of Hate Speech Act, though intended to protect dignity and equality, goes beyond what our Constitution permits and places freedom of religion at risk. It criminalises expression using vague and undefined concepts and expands protected grounds without legal certainty.  In a constitutional democracy, believers must be free to express their faith without fear of prosecution. Equality must never be advanced by eroding religious freedom. We therefore urge that the Act be constitutionally aligned through appropriate amendments before it comes into operation. 7.    Conclusion: restoring dignity, restoring the state No country survives without law. No economy grows without stability. No democracy thrives without accountability. South Africans want safety, fairness, opportunity and a state that works. Through decisive, coordinated action on security reform, border integrity, infrastructure protection, skills development and consequence management, we will deliver. Judge us not by our words, but by the order we restore, the stability we secure and the future we build together.  I thank you.  

Tragic death of Bernard Isaacs Primary School 5-year-old: protecting our youngest learners

Tragic death of Bernard Isaacs Primary School 5-year-old: protecting our youngest learners

Statement by Zandile Phiri, Acting Secretary General of the United Democratic Movement It is with profound sadness that United Democratic Movement (UDM) reflects on the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of a five-year-old learner at Bernard Isaacs Primary School in Coronationville, Johannesburg. Parents entrust schools with the care and protection of their children every single day. That trust must never be compromised. The loss of a child in a school environment is not only a family tragedy, but also a national concern. We note that the Gauteng Department of Education has appointed an independent law firm to investigate this matter. The process must be thorough, transparent and credible. The family deserves clear answers. The community deserves clarity; and where accountability is required, it must follow without delay. Tragically, this is not an isolated incident. Earlier this year, an eight-year-old learner at Klapmuts Primary School in the Western Cape died during school hours under circumstances that required police investigation. In 2025, another eight-year-old learner at Alberview Primary School in Gauteng died after sustaining injuries while playing at school, prompting an independent departmental inquiry. When incidents of this nature occur repeatedly across provinces, they demand more than case-by-case responses. They demand systemic intervention. The UDM therefore calls on the Minister of Basic Education Siviwe Gwarube and her department to initiate a nationwide review of school safety protocols. This must include: 1.    A comprehensive audit of supervision policies during school hours and school events. 2.    A review of infrastructure safety, including classrooms, playgrounds and sanitation facilities. 3.    Clear national minimum standards for emergency response procedures at schools. 4.    Mandatory reporting and transparency frameworks when serious incidents occur. 5.    Immediate psychosocial support mechanisms for learners, staff and families affected by school tragedies. The safety of children cannot depend solely on provincial capacity or individual school management. National leadership must set clear standards, enforce compliance, and ensure that preventative measures are implemented uniformly across the country. Schools must remain safe spaces for learning, not sites of preventable tragedy. If gaps exist, they must be closed. If policies are inadequate, they must be strengthened. If oversight is weak, it must be reinforced. Our thoughts remain with the family of the young learner and all families who continue to seek answers in similar cases. We owe it to them, and to every child in South Africa, to move from reaction to prevention.  

Stay Conencted