Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈

I try with all my might to be myself; I thirst for unique and authentic things. Am rare| Humble| Adventurous| Socialite| Philanthropist| Communicator| Activist❤

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

**Four Former Presidents of the Republic of South Africa, post 1994**

1) Under President Nelson Mandela's leadership, major projects and government achievements included the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to address the injustices of apartheid, the adoption of a new democratic constitution, and the implementation of policies to promote reconciliation and nation-building.

2) During Thabo Mbeki's presidency, key initiatives focused on economic growth and infrastructure development, such as the Expanded Public Works Programme and the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative.

3) Under President Kgalema Motlanthe, efforts were made to address challenges such as poverty and unemployment, with initiatives like the Jobs Fund and the National Development Plan gaining momentum.

4) President Zuma initiated his first term with a strategic overhaul of the government aimed at enhancing efficiency and fostering cooperation with society, encapsulated by the theme "Working Together We Can Do More."

This restructuring saw the establishment of several new government departments, including the Departments of Women, Children and People with Disabilities, Rural Development and Land Reform (separating Agriculture from Land Affairs), Basic Education (separating it from Higher Education), Cooperative Government and Traditional Affairs (with a renewed focus on Provincial and Local Government), Military Veterans, International Relations and Cooperation (formerly Department of Foreign Affairs), and Economic Development.

Of particular significance were the introduction of two new functions and Ministries within the Presidency: Performance Monitoring and Evaluation, and the National Planning Commission.

Furthermore, there was a pivotal shift in the housing portfolio towards Human Settlements, emphasizing the importance of not just providing shelter but also the necessary infrastructure and services for a decent standard of living.

A notable achievement of this 4th administration was the development of the National Development Plan Vision 2030 by the National Planning Commission, established in 2009 under President Zuma's leadership, providing the country with a long-term strategic roadmap beyond mere short-term goals.

( DISCLAIMER: I DON’T OWN ANY COPYRIGHT © OF THIS IMAGES - 📸 CREDIT; @PresidencyZA )

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

JUST IN: US former president Joe Biden announces his presidential memoir release date which is scheduled to be published on November 17, 2026, by Little, Brown and Company… 🇺🇸📕

[Joe Biden @JoeBiden]

I’ve written a book about my time as President. It’s called PROMISE ME, AMERICA. It’s coming out November 17th and is available for preorder now. 
https://t.co/ocUgOELn3m
@littlebrown

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

🖤💚💛

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

🖤💚💛 Oliver Tambo bamba isandla sami, Oliver Tambo bambi isandla sami, ungasiyekeli. 🖤💚💛

✅ Register online: https://t.co/2hCA4iDB9k

📍 Find your voting station: https://t.co/7tDchZGDPj

#LGE2026
#RegisterToVoteANC

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

Yhoooo 🙆🏽‍♀️🙆🏽‍♀️🙆🏽‍♀️

[Nhlanhla Mabaso @_NMabaso]

BREAKING NEWS: Former @eThekwiniM mayor and former ANC eThekwini regional chairperson Zandile Gumede has joined the @MkhontoweSizwex.

The political heavyweight has been named the party’s KwaZulu-Natal Deputy provincial convenor. @ECR_Newswatch

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

TGIF! 🍷

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

Sadly, I don't think they have much recourse left. They're dealing with a state where dissent is met with force, the security apparatus answers to the executive, and institutions that are supposed to provide checks and balances, like Parliament and, in many cases, the judiciary, have very limited ability to hold the executive accountable because they too are beholden to Mnangagwa.

Then even if you look beyond Zimbabwe. Regional leaders who should be applying political pressure have largely failed to do so. Even us as South Africa, which many across the continent still see our country as a democratic leader with real political, military and economic influence, has often chosen party-to-party solidarity with ZANU-PF over standing firmly with ordinary Zimbabweans and defending human rights.

After years of living under that reality, many Zimbabweans have come to accept that no one is coming to help them challenge the Zanu rule and in this context the brutal and corrupt Mnangagwa government. Whether we agree with it or not, it's understandable why some trace the roots of that frustration back to President Mbeki's approach and to the ANC-led government's handling of Zimbabwe over the years. If that's how they've experienced it, I don't think it's for us to dismiss or belittle those feelings.

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

That's a question African leaders themselves should be answering if indeed they value ethical leadership, democratic order and human rights. If leaders who undermine democracy and cling to power are never called out by their fellow African heads of state or regional bodies, then we're normalising that behaviour.

There has to be real accountability among peers and member states, not just silence or carefully worded statements. The sooner leaders who keep extending their stay in power at the expense of their people are politically isolated and pressured to respect constitutional order, the better it will be for the continent.

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

Not anytime soon. As long as former President Zuma is still alive and actively involved, I don't see the party imploding. The core support base that has stood with him since around 2005 has shown time and again that it isn't easily shaken by negative public narratives against him. They remain loyal, regardless of criticism.

The party may lose votes or perform differently from one election to the next, but that's not the same as collapsing. A real test of its long-term survival would probably come once President Zuma is no longer at the centre of it, whether through total political retirement or any other eventuality like health impediment or sadly death (God forbid). That's when we'll be able to see whether the MKP has grown beyond one individual or whether it was always built around his personal influence alone.

We are already seeing a similar dynamic in Kenya following the passing of Raila Odinga. ODM is now having to painfully redefine itself without the man who had been its sole face, its chief campaigner and its unifying force for decades. Thus, the hostile public divisions and infighting happening between ODM party leaders. Personality-driven parties often face that moment of truth when their founding leader exits the political stage.

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

The MK Party's Biggest Opponent May Be Itself!

As the official opposition in South Africa's Seventh Parliament and the country's third-largest political party, the MK Party occupies a powerful political position. Yet, despite its electoral strength, it faces an immediate challenge that has very little to do with its political opponents. Its biggest test may well be internal leadership and organisational management.

At the centre of that challenge is the reality that the party is led by an elderly statesman whose political stature is unquestionable, but whose style of leadership appears increasingly unsuited to the demands of modern politics. Politics today is no longer fought only in rallies, press conferences and parliamentary debates. It is fought every day on digital platforms, podcasts, online interviews and social media, where public perception is formed in real time. If a political leader is absent from those spaces, others will inevitably fill the silence.

Equally what ought to be concerning for them is the apparent inability, or the unwillingness to empower their Secretary-General's Office to function as the administrative engine of the organisation. In any serious political party, the SG of a political party is expected to manage the day-to-day affairs, enforce organisational discipline, coordinate structures and ensure that decisions taken by the leadership collective are implemented consistently across the movement. When that office lacks sufficient authority or room to operate, an organisational vacuum develops. That vacuum is rarely left empty for long. It is filled by confusion, competing centres of power, inconsistent messaging and growing indiscipline.

From the outside looking in, that is increasingly the impression the MK Party projects. Structures often appear disconnected from one another. Factional infighting between those who claim were there in the formative stages and those who came post the 2024 general elections; which in my view is a nonsensical fight because in a serous organisation all members are equal no matter when one joined because you all need each other to grow the party. Lastly their public communication unfortunately lacks consistency ( At least their new National Spokesperson is trying to make up this shortfall). Members frequently contradict one another in the public square or social media in particular, and organisational decisions sometimes appear uncertain or reactive rather than deliberate. Whether that perception is entirely fair is almost secondary. In politics, perception often becomes political reality.

Another structural weakness seems to stem from the centralisation of authority around the party president. When every dispute, grievance or request is ultimately taken directly to Nkandla by the membership, it unintentionally weakens every other office or office bearers (leaders) within the organisation. Office bearers become administrators in title but not necessarily in authority. Members quickly learn that the fastest route to influence is not through organisational processes but through direct access to the president.

That inevitably breeds a culture where everyone wants to lead, few are prepared to be led, and institutional authority steadily erodes. Rules therefore become negotiable. Discipline also becomes selective. Organisational cohesion begins to depend more on personalities than on established structures.

1/2

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

None of this diminishes the immense political influence or historical contribution of the party's president. His experience, liberation credentials and ability to mobilise support remain among the MK Party's greatest assets. But political capital alone certainly cannot substitute for modern organisational management. Today's successful political movements require strong institutions alongside strong personalities. One cannot permanently compensate for the absence of the other.

Communication presents another strategic challenge. The relationship between the MK Party and much of South Africa's established legacy media appears strained, if not openly distrustful. That may be understandable from the party's perspective or even from their party President. However, refusing to engage legacy media while simultaneously failing to fully embrace newer communication platforms like podcasts, unfortunately leaves a dangerous gap. Politics abhors silence. If you do not tell your own story, someone else will most probably your political opponents, foes, detractors and enemies shall do it for you and usually not in your favour at all.

This is perhaps where the MK Party is most vulnerable heading into the next local government elections. Too often, it appears to spend more time responding to narratives or sometimes not even trying to correct the record, rather than creating their own coherent political message and narrative. Without a disciplined communication strategy, coherent organisational messaging and visible leadership across multiple platforms, political opponents gain the advantage of defining the party before it defines itself.

The irony is that none of these challenges are ideological. They are however organisational. They are managerial. And, importantly, they are fixable. Empower institutional leadership. Allow the SGO to perform its constitutional ir organisational role. Any serious political party or movement knows that there should never be a distance between its President and the Secretary-General; their direct lines of communication must be opened 24/7 and should speak from the same political hymn book. Strengthen discipline. Decentralise operational authority while preserving strategic leadership. Most importantly, communicate consistently, directly and unapologetically with South Africans wherever they are consuming political content.

The MK Party has demonstrated that it can attract millions of voters. Its next and pivotal test is now proving that it can build an organisation capable of sustaining that support. Winning an election cycle is one thing. Building a durable political institution is something entirely different.

That is my zero opinion and view as the MK Party prepares for the local government elections...

2/2

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

Comrade Supra, on what basis is the committee, or even yourself as Chairperson, involving yourselves in this matter? I don't recall the committee taking a similar interest when President Ramaphosa made a private visit to Zimbabwe on 3 May 2026, where he met the Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa at his private Precabe Farm in Kwekwe. Reports also indicated that he met controversial businessman Wicknell Chivayo, whose assets have been frozen here in our country and who has been under investigation over alleged money laundering.

Why are there different standards for two presidents? One is now a former Head of State, elderly Statesman and private citizen, while the other is the sitting President, over whom Parliament has a clear constitutional oversight responsibility. If there was no urgency to involve the committee in the latter case, why is there urgency now as it pertains to the former President? This kind of inconsistency creates the impression that Parliament and its parliamentary committees are being drawn into political battles instead of applying the same standard to everyone. That does little to strengthen public confidence in Parliament's impartiality...

[Supra Mahumapelo @supranomics]

Let me just make it official that as the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on International Relations, I have written to DiRCO about matters surrounding the former PresZuma private visit to India and the committee can only speak collectively after receiving it

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

Comrade Supra, on what basis is the committee, or even yourself as Chairperson, involving yourselves in this matter? I don't recall the committee taking a similar interest when President Ramaphosa made a private visit to Zimbabwe on 3 May 2026, where he met the Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa at his private Precabe Farm in Kwekwe. Reports also indicated that he met controversial businessman Wicknell Chivayo, whose assets have been frozen here in our country and who has been under investigation over alleged money laundering.

Why are there different standards for two presidents? One is now a former Head of State, elderly Statesman and private citizen, while the other is the sitting President, over whom Parliament has a clear constitutional oversight responsibility. If there was no urgency to involve the committee in the latter case, why is there urgency now as it pertains to the former President? This kind of inconsistency creates the impression that Parliament and its parliamentary committees are being drawn into political battles instead of applying the same standard to everyone. That does little to strengthen public confidence in Parliament's impartiality...

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

You're raising concerns about accountability, and that's perfectly legitimate. But you're still moving away from the legal question I've been asking.

If former President Zuma has committed a criminal offence by travelling, meeting certain individuals or misusing state resources, then the relevant law enforcement agencies must investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute him. That's how the rule of law works abd should work inba constitutional democracy. Allegations, no matter how serious, do not replace legal process.

You're also stating as fact that he used state resources unlawfully. If that's the case, there must be evidence and a legal finding to support it. We can't simply assume illegality because we disagree with his conduct. In our constitutional system, guilt is determined by a court, not by public opinion or political debate.

As for the Guptas, whether they are wanted through international processes does not automatically make every meeting with them a criminal offence under South African law. If such a meeting breached a specific law, then identify the law and let the authorities act on it. If it did not, then we're back to debating ethics and politics rather than legality.

My point has remained consistent throughout. If there is evidence of criminal conduct, investigate it. If there is sufficient evidence, prosecute it. If a court finds wrongdoing, then legal consequences must follow. But if the discussion is about stripping a former President of benefits, then the question remains exactly the same: what law authorises that? So far, no one has pointed to a specific legal provision that allows it.

The rule of law requires us to separate what we think of a person from what the law actually permits the state to do. That's the constitutional principle I'm defending. Here we are not debating a moral, ethical and personal judgement question.

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

There is something deeply troubling about the growing chorus demanding that former President Jacob Zuma be stripped of the benefits and privileges afforded to all former Heads of State. Before emotions take over, a simple yet fundamental legal question needs to be answered: under which law can this be done? Which Act of Parliament, government regulation or official policy provides that a former President forfeits post-presidential benefits under the present circumstances?

That question matters because our country is supposed to be governed by the rule of law, not by public sentiment. In our constitutional democracy, government cannot simply remove rights, benefits or entitlements because a particular individual has become unpopular or politically inconvenient. Every exercise of public power must have a lawful foundation. If there is no law authorising such a decision, then there is no lawful basis to take it.

If the current legal framework governing former Presidents' benefits is considered outdated or inadequate, there is a constitutional process available. Parliament can amend the relevant legislation, or the executive can review the applicable policies and regulations through the proper channels of government and cabinet. That is how constitutional democracies function. Laws are changed prospectively through established democratic processes, not retrospectively to target one individual.

This is why the debate should not revolve around whether one likes or dislikes Jacob Zuma. Personal opinions are irrelevant to the legal question. The issue is whether government has the legal authority to do what some politicians and political elites are demanding. If that authority exists, then those advocating for its removal should point to the specific legal provision. If it does not exist, then the answer is not political outrage but legislative reform.

There is also a historical reality that cannot simply be rewritten because political alliances have shifted. Jacob Zuma became ANC President after defeating Thabo Mbeki at the party's 52nd National Conference in 2007. He then led the ANC as the presidential face into the 2009 general election, where the party secured a majority. In accordance with section 86 of the Constitution, the National Assembly elected him President of the Republic, after which he took the constitutional oath of office and became the 4th duly elected and constitutionally sworn-in President of the Republic of South Africa. Following the ANC's victory again in the 2014 general election, he was elected by the National Assembly to serve a second term. Those are constitutional and historical facts. They are not matters of opinion. Therefore the political elites must not seek to win a political fight they lost in a political arena through the backdoor.

1/2

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

I think you're making two different arguments and treating them as if they're one.

Firstly, Chapter 5 of the Constitution deals with the powers, functions and removal of a sitting President. It does not create or regulate the post-presidential benefits of former Presidents, nor does it contain a provision that says those benefits may be withdrawn because a former President is alleged to have brought the country into disrepute or acted contrary to government policy.

Secondly, you say the government has the authority to revoke those benefits. My question is simple: under which law? Please cite the specific Act of Parliament, regulation or official government policy, act or regulation and framework that expressly gives the executive that power and sets out the grounds and process for withdrawing a former President's benefits. A constitutional democracy like ours cannot operate on implied powers or assumptions. The principle of legality requires a clear legal source for every exercise of public power.

You also refer to "ongoing good standing." Again, where is that legal requirement found? I have not seen any our country's statute or published regulation that makes former presidential benefits conditional upon remaining in the government's good books or aligning with the foreign policy of the sitting administration.

If there is evidence that former President Zuma committed an offence, compromised national security or violated any law, then there are existing legal mechanisms to investigate and prosecute him. Criminal liability and entitlement to post-presidential benefits are not automatically the same legal question. One does not simply cancel out the other unless the law expressly says so.

The rule of law demands more than saying, "it should be done." It requires identifying the legal authority that permits it. If that authority exists, it should be clearly cited. If it doesn't, then the proper constitutional route is for Parliament to amend the law prospectively, or even cabinet taking an executive decision through proper processes and gazette such; otherwise it is not for the executive to create powers that have never been granted to it.

That's the fundamental distinction I'm making. I'm not arguing personalities; I'm actually arguing legality. In constitutional law, those are two very different things.

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

Not quite. Impeachment only applies to a sitting President, not a former one.

Section 89 of the Constitution empowers the National Assembly to remove an incumbent President from office for a serious violation of the Constitution or the law, serious misconduct, or inability to perform the functions of office. Once someone has already left office, there is no office left from which to remove them. In other words, you cannot impeach someone who is no longer President but a private citizen.

So if anyone argues that former President Zuma's post-presidential benefits should be withdrawn, the argument cannot be based on impeachment. They would have to point to a specific law or legal provision that authorises the withdrawal of those benefits after a President has left office.

Whether people support or oppose Zuma politically is a separate debate. But from a constitutional perspective, impeachment is not a mechanism that can be applied to a former President.

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

I think there's an important distinction to make here. I don't recall former President Zuma speaking against South Africa as a country. His criticism has largely been directed at the ANC, President Ramaphosa and the current administration. Those are not the same thing. Criticising a government or a governing party is not the same as attacking the country itself.

Zuma is now the leader of an opposition political party. It's expected that he'll advance his own political message and criticise those in power. That's how politics works in a constitutional democracy. Opposition parties exist to challenge the government of the day.

We've seen similar situations elsewhere. Former Presidents like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden have openly criticised President Trump and the Republican Party. In Botswana, former President Ian Khama has publicly opposed President Duma Boko. In Kenya, former President Uhuru Kenyatta has differed politically with President William Ruto. The late Edgar Lungu also strongly opposed President Hakainde Hichilema in Zambia.

Whether people agree with that style of politics is another debate altogether. But political criticism of an incumbent government by a former Head of State who now leads the opposition is not unusual. That's a political question, not necessarily a legal one.

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

You're conflating separate issues.

Whether I personally approve of Jacob Zuma's conduct is irrelevant to the point I'm making. My argument is about the principle of legality and constitutional governance, not about defending or even condemning an individual for that matter. Those are two very different things.

If Zuma has broken the law, then the law must certainly take its course. That's exactly how a constitutional democracy is supposed to work. But neither you nor I gets to decide guilt through the court of public opinion. That's the job of the courts, based on evidence and the law.

As for the MKP and Floyd, that's an internal political party matter and not my concern. Floyd joined the MKP voluntarily, and that party like any other is free to make its own decisions about its members in accordance with its own rules, constitution and political considerations. That has nothing to do with government, nor does it determine whether a former President of the Republic of South Africa is legally entitled to the benefits attached to having held that office.

Let's not mix political party decisions with constitutional and legal questions. They're separate issues. We can debate Zuma's politics or personal conduct all day, but the legal question remains the same: if someone wants his presidential benefits removed, they must point to the law that authorises it. That's the issue under discussion.

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

@xivanda A private citizen that was the President, Head of State and Commander in Chief. Therefore he has presidential benefits and privileges. It's not that hard to comprehend..

[Lunathi Kilani 🇿🇦🏳️‍🌈 @LunathiKilani]

I think you're mixing up two different concepts. Receiving benefits or state protection as a former President does not mean someone stops being a private citizen. Once they leave office, they no longer exercise executive authority or hold any public or representative office. They are citizens who may receive certain benefits because they previously held the highest office in the country.

Yes, the state may continue providing security, administrative support and other benefits in terms of the applicable laws and policies, but that doesn't create a separate legal status where they cease being private citizens. They still enjoy the same constitutional rights as every other South African, including freedom of expression, freedom of association and political participation.

As for how they "have to conduct themselves," that's more of a moral or political expectation than a legal rule. If there's a law that prescribes a code of conduct for former Heads of State after they've left office, then it should be cited without ambiguity. Otherwise, we're talking about opinions and expectations, not legal obligations.