The Government of National Unity’s immigration reset is being presented as modernisation. Yet public submissions tell a different story—one of deep distrust in the state’s expanding authority.

The Draft Revised White Paper proposes mandatory biometric registration for all individuals, discretionary merit-based citizenship allocation, and stricter asylum filtering through a “First Safe Country” rule.

Reform is necessary. But structural reform that concentrates power without demonstrable institutional competence demands scrutiny.

Mandatory Biometrics: Security or Surveillance Infrastructure?

The proposed “Intelligent Population Register” would centralise biometric identifiers into a single state-controlled database. Government frames it as a national security tool. Critics describe it as a surveillance-capable infrastructure lacking explicit constitutional guardrails.

In a country already struggling with data breaches and administrative inefficiency, centralising identity into one digital system introduces a single point of systemic failure—technical, political, or criminal.

The absence of clearly articulated warrant protections for law enforcement access has intensified constitutional debate.

Merit-Based Citizenship: Certainty Replaced by Discretion

Citizenship under the proposal shifts from rule-based qualification to panel evaluation. Economic contribution becomes a determining metric.

This raises structural questions: Is citizenship a legal status grounded in allegiance and lawful residence—or an economic asset distributed through contribution scoring?

Replacing objective thresholds with discretionary panels increases opacity and invites future politicisation. Administrative justice concerns are likely to surface in litigation if criteria lack transparency.

Asylum and European Comparisons

The “First Safe Country” principle mirrors policy debates in parts of Europe. Yet South Africa’s enforcement capacity differs materially. Without robust border control and adjudication systems, tightening access risks driving migration further underground rather than resolving it.

Governance Capacity Question

Home Affairs continues to face backlogs and operational challenges in core functions. Expanding its authority to manage a universal biometric database and discretionary citizenship regime intensifies accountability concerns.

Public Resistance

Current DearSouthAfrica data shows overwhelming opposition relative to support. That signal cannot be dismissed as fringe reaction; it reflects structural anxiety about unchecked executive expansion.

The Broader Question

Is this immigration reform designed to fix administration—or to expand state leverage over identity and belonging?

Citizens wishing to formally record opposition or support can submit comments through the Dear South Africa platform before the deadline.

The post Immigration White Paper: Reform or Power Consolidation? appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

South Africa’s foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak has become one of the most severe in over a century. Spreading across multiple provinces since 2025, it has destroyed herds, closed auctions, imposed crippling movement bans, and pushed countless farmers toward bankruptcy. For many, the human cost has been tragic.

When DA Minister John Steenhuisen took office in the GNU, livestock farmers breathed a sigh of relief. Here, finally, was a minister from a party that promised clean governance, respect for expertise, and decisive action—unlike the failures of the past. Yet one year later, that initial optimism has given way to serious questions about priorities, delivery, and openness.

The “Breakthrough” Announcement That Doesn’t Add Up

On 6 February 2026, Minister Steenhuisen announced the release of 12,900 locally produced FMD vaccine doses from the ARC-Onderstepoort facility — the first such batch in more than 20 years. He described it as a major step forward in the “war on FMD,” with production planned to reach 20,000 doses per week from March and further scaling in the years ahead.

The numbers, however, tell a different story.

Industry and veterinary estimates indicate that controlling the disease across South Africa’s roughly 12–14 million cattle requires vaccinating a very large proportion of the national herd, in the order of 14 million doses every six months. The current output and projected ramp-up fall dramatically short of that requirement. Even in the most optimistic scenario, meaningful coverage of the national herd remains years away.

More concerning still: this is not a brand-new vaccine. Development began around 2010 with international collaboration, the formulation was fully tested, licensed and registered in 2022, and the achievement was publicly celebrated at the time — and again in 2023. Yet no large-scale production followed. The disease continued to spread while a ready, approved vaccine remained on the shelf.

Why did it take four more years — and a full year under current leadership — for even a token quantity to be produced? Was this simply inherited bureaucratic inertia and chronic underfunding of state facilities, or is there another explanation?

Why Confidentiality in a National Public Crisis?

On 10 February 2026 — only days after Dr Danie Odendaal, one of South Africa’s most experienced ruminant veterinarians and a long-serving member of ministerial FMD task teams, publicly detailed the production delays and scale shortfall — Minister Steenhuisen terminated his membership of the Ministerial Task Team on Controlled Diseases.

The stated reason: Dr Odendaal had refused to sign an impartiality and confidentiality declaration that binds members to refrain from any activity that might compromise their integrity or create a conflict, and that imposes a duty of confidentiality.

The core question is unavoidable:

In a crisis that is already extremely public — one that affects national food security, rural livelihoods, consumer prices, and export markets — why does a ministerial task team require members to sign strict confidentiality clauses at all?

Non-disclosure agreements are standard when protecting commercially sensitive intellectual property, ongoing procurement negotiations, or matters of genuine national security. But FMD control strategy, production delays on a long-licensed state-developed vaccine, and the adequacy (or inadequacy) of response plans are not trade secrets. They are matters of legitimate public interest — especially when taxpayer-funded research and infrastructure are involved and when farmers and consumers bear the consequences.

Removing the Expert Who Spoke Out

Dr Odendaal has served on FMD advisory structures since at least 2016. He has deep institutional knowledge of the disease, the Onderstepoort facility, and what realistic control looks like. In recent public statements (including social-media posts and media interviews), he described the current task team as largely ineffective, with senior officials sidelining practical input from veterinarians and farmers alike.

His removal came immediately after those criticisms became widely circulated.

Agricultural organisations, producer bodies and opposition voices have condemned the decision. Legal action is already being prepared. The optics are stark: a leading expert is sidelined not for incompetence or misconduct, but for refusing to stay silent about documented, years-long shortcomings.

Billions in Vaccine Contracts — and Zero Transparency

When domestic production capacity is so limited, South Africa will have little choice but to import millions of doses or outsource large-scale manufacture to private international laboratories. Either route involves procurement contracts potentially worth billions of rand over the coming years.

In any environment — but especially in South Africa — large, centralised, high-value tenders carry well-known risks. Against that backdrop, the combination of:

• multi-year delays on a ready-licensed vaccine,
• glowing announcements about tiny initial batches presented as major victories,
• strict confidentiality imposed on task-team members,
• and the swift removal of the one senior expert who publicly questioned the narrative

A Reckoning for Those Who Backed the DA

DA supporters backed the party because it promised a clean break from the past: no more cadre deployment, no more excuses, no more opacity, respect for expertise, and results that actually reach people on the ground.

If a DA minister:

• inherits the worst FMD outbreak in living memory,
• spends the better part of a year on roadshows and international engagements while farmers face ruin,
• celebrates token vaccine quantities as breakthroughs while the epidemiological need is orders of magnitude larger,
• and removes a respected, long-serving veterinarian for refusing to sign a secrecy declaration in the middle of a public emergency.

The questions hang in the air, unspoken but insistent:

• Why was a licensed, celebrated vaccine not moved into mass production years ago, when wider devastation could still have been prevented?
• Why impose confidentiality requirements on a task team dealing with a disease and control strategy that are already matters of intense public discussion?
• Why terminate one of the country’s foremost FMD experts precisely when he is highlighting verifiable production failures and inadequate scale?
• With billions of rands potentially flowing through future vaccine contracts, whose interests are actually being protected — those of struggling farmers, or other agendas?

South Africans — especially those who voted for change — deserve more than polished announcements, roadblocks to scrutiny, and silence from the very people appointed to solve the problem.

If this pattern continues, the cost will not only be measured in lost cattle, shuttered auctions and rising food prices. It will also be measured in the steady erosion of public trust in the very political force many hoped would govern differently.

The post South Africa’s Foot-And-Mouth Crisis Deepens appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

Municipal Workers Left in the Lurch

Workers who sustain our cities and towns are facing a reality no one should endure. In municipalities across the country, employees are left waiting for their pay while local services grind to a halt. Reports detail strikes at Nkomazi Local Municipality and other regions where workers protest delayed or missing salaries, forcing them into desperate industrial action just to survive.

The government deflects responsibility, citing structural funding challenges and municipal mismanagement. Yet these are predictable failures when the state prioritizes its own pockets over citizens’ needs.

Politicians Reward Themselves

While municipal employees endure hardship, the Independent Commission for the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers has recommended an above-inflation 4.1% pay increase for South Africa’s top officials in 2026.

• The President will earn R3.486 million, an increase of R137,000.
• The Deputy President receives a similar bump of R130,000.
• Cabinet ministers see R110,000 extra annually, while members of parliament get R52,000 more, on top of enhanced benefits like pensions and medical aid contributions.

Even at the municipal level, mayors will take home R1.6 million, and councillors R714,000, with annual increases exceeding what most South Africans earn in an entire year (Business Tech, 2026 salary forecast).

The Stark Divide

This is the contrast that exposes systemic moral failure: workers going unpaid, struggling to put food on the table, versus politicians and office bearers approving themselves substantial windfalls. The increase for a single politician can equal the entire annual salary of a municipal worker. Meanwhile, ordinary South Africans face minimal, if any, wage increases, stagnating under rising costs and inflation.

Trade unions and civil society groups, including COSATU, have condemned these hikes as tone-deaf, highlighting the disconnect between elite remuneration and citizens’ lived realities.

Systemic Corruption and Dysfunction

This is more than salaries; it is a reflection of a government that rewards itself while failing its mandate. Service delivery remains erratic: water shortages, electricity outages, dysfunctional roads, and collapsed sewer systems plague communities (Cato Manor sewer crisis resolved). Yet, for the elite, incompetence is irrelevant — self-reward is guaranteed.

The financial strain on municipalities is compounded by mismanagement and unfunded mandates, yet the salaries of public office bearers are insulated from these pressures, perpetuating a culture where the state serves its leaders before the people.

Public Reaction and Accountability

Ordinary citizens are witnessing a government that has lost touch with its purpose. While municipal workers protest to survive, politicians reward themselves. The optics are catastrophic, and the anger is justified.

This is a government that has prioritized its own wellbeing over that of its citizens, reinforcing inequality and eroding trust. South Africans are left to ask: if those running the state are financially secure while the very people who keep it functional go unpaid, what is the purpose of governance?

South Africa stands at a critical juncture. Municipal workers continue to suffer under delayed salaries, service delivery failures, and systemic incompetence. Meanwhile, politicians approve themselves lavish pay increases with impunity. The disconnect is both shocking and morally indefensible.

The question is now unavoidable: how long will citizens tolerate a government that pays itself first while leaving workers and communities to struggle?

The post Government Rewards Itself, Leaves Municipal Workers to Struggle appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

“Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me.”

We grew up believing emotional strength was a shield — that words could provoke us, challenge us, even insult us, but they could never destroy us. Now, South Africa’s government is attempting to legislate the opposite. Through the newly drafted Crime of Apartheid Bill (available via the Dear South Africa campaign at dearsouthafrica.co.za/apartheid-bill), speech itself becomes a weapon the state claims the right to regulate, redefine, and punish.

At first glance, the bill appears noble: incorporating the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid into domestic law. The government leans heavily on the language of human rights, echoing the Convention’s original intent — available in the archival document uploaded and the public PDF released on 14 November 2025 by DearSA.

But when you compare the original Convention with the new draft, an uncomfortable truth emerges:
This bill is not about preventing systemic oppression — it is about policing ideology, speech, and dissent.

1. The Manufacturing of Fragility: Criminalising Opinions

Where the original Convention targets states engaged in systematic racial domination, the new South African draft expands into the realm of political belief. It empowers the state to decide whether your alignment with a foreign government, organisation, movement — or even your commentary on global events — constitutes complicity in an “apartheid-like system.”

This means your words, not your actions, become prosecutable.

• This is not strength.
• This is a government legislating its own emotional fragility.

2. Extraterritorial Reach: A Long Arm With Short Logic

The bill claims jurisdiction beyond South Africa’s borders, giving the state the theoretical authority to pursue South Africans who have emigrated — even those who fled for safety or political reasons, including individuals who left during the period when the Trump administration acknowledged threats toward the Afrikaner community in South Africa.

Foreign states are unlikely to cooperate with such prosecutions, but the point isn’t successful convictions.
The point is intimidation.

A law doesn’t need to be enforceable to be useful — it only needs to create fear.

3. Centralised Prosecutorial Power: The Gatekeeper Clause

The bill requires the written consent of the National Director of Public Prosecutions before any case may proceed. No private prosecutions. No independent triggers. No democratic checks.

This creates a mechanism perfectly suited for selective targeting.
The language mirrors the pattern used historically in one-party dominant states — where legal discretion becomes a political tool.

4. Misplaced Priorities: Ideology Over Hunger, Crime, and Collapse

South Africa is drowning in problems: violent crime, infrastructure decay, collapsing municipalities, and thousands of children suffering malnutrition — yet the state’s legislative energy is being poured into the policing of global ideological alignments.

Public submissions on Dear South Africa’s platform reveal a unified concern:
“weaponising laws,” “political motivation,” “criminalising free speech,” “attacking citizens instead of helping them.”

When the public becomes the government’s perceived enemy, governance loses its moral centre.

5. The Hypocrisy: A Government Afraid of Its Own Shadow

If the government truly believes that support for a foreign state with alleged discriminatory practices constitutes a crime… then what prevents citizens from applying the very same definitions to South Africa itself?

If:

• denial of opportunity,
• service-delivery collapse,
• race-based exclusion,
• selective policing,
• and political intimidation

meet the descriptive criteria of “systematic discriminatory practice”…

…then who is truly vulnerable under the Convention’s original definitions?

The government is playing with a weapon sharp on both sides.

Some argue that the law simply aligns South Africa with international obligations and gives victims of global discrimination a legal pathway to justice. This may be theoretically valid — but the bill’s architecture far exceeds practical international norms, turning South Africa into a self-appointed global moral authority without the resources, consistency, or neutrality such authority demands.

This bill is not about justice.
It is about ideological control.
It is the state abandoning the emotional resilience we were raised with and replacing it with legal fragility — a model where words must be policed because the government fears what those words may reveal.

If words never had the power to break us, why is the government now demanding the power to punish them?
And if dissent becomes a crime, what becomes of democracy?

South Africans deserve better than legislation built on insecurity and intimidation.
Have your say and formally oppose the bill at: Dear South Africa.

The post A Government Afraid of Words: How the New “Crime of Apartheid” Bill Turns Dissent Into a Target appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

South Africa’s hosting of the G20 summit has devolved into a public relations disaster, revealing the true extent of the ANC’s hubris and mismanagement. President Cyril Ramaphosa’s public claims that the United States reversed its decision to boycott the summit were proven false by official White House statements. Washington confirmed it will not attend the leaders’ summit, only sending a junior delegate for the ceremonial handover — a routine, symbolic formality.

.@PressSec: “The United States is not participating in official talks at the G20 in South Africa. I saw the South African President running his mouth a little bit against the United States and @POTUS… and that language is not appreciated by @POTUS and his team.” pic.twitter.com/82sli52oRD

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) November 20, 2025

The narrative propagated by Ramaphosa and amplified by compliant media outlets sought to exaggerate South Africa’s global relevance. Yet the reality is stark: the country’s economic policies, including BEE, Affirmative Action, and Employment Equity, have weakened GDP growth, driven unemployment to record levels, and reduced South Africa’s ability to assert real influence on the world stage.

Multiple global leaders, including those from China, Brazil, and Russia, have scaled back participation, leaving South Africa scrambling to maintain appearances. The G20 fiasco exposes not only the ANC’s overestimation of its power but also its reliance on spin and media manipulation to maintain an illusion of credibility.

@StephanZA’s video provides a detailed breakdown of these lies, the frantic last-minute scramble by the Ramaphosa administration, and the reality of South Africa’s declining geopolitical significance. This is a cautionary tale of arrogance, mismanagement, and the consequences of prioritising image over substance.

The post Ramaphosa’s G20 Spin Exposed: Lies, Panic, and Global Reality appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

A Divided Narrative: Trump’s Warning And South Africa’s Silence

Donald Trump’s recent remarks have once again ignited a global debate over South Africa’s farm murders and the alleged racial double standards in both local and international coverage. The former U.S. president publicly accused the ANC of ignoring racially motivated violence against white farmers — a claim that has drawn both fierce criticism and silent validation depending on which media outlet one reads.

South African content creator StephanZA echoed Trump’s sentiments, calling out what he describes as the “media blackout” on farm attacks. In his latest commentary, he referenced the murder of KwaZulu-Natal farmer Mike Pryor, arguing that national coverage often downplays such incidents or buries them in local news feeds. Pryor’s killing, he claims, is “one of countless tragedies” that point to a targeted trend against white farmers — a claim dismissed by government officials as “misinformation.”

The Facts On The Ground: Mike Pryor’s Death

According to a report from IOL (Independent Online), Mike Pryor was abducted from his home in the Indezi Valley and later found burned in his vehicle. The uMngeni Local Municipality confirmed the tragedy, noting that investigations suggest a possible connection to a disgruntled former employee. The SAPS has opened a murder inquiry, but as of this report, no arrests have been made.

Local officials, including Deputy Mayor Sandile Mnikathi, condemned the killing and urged vigilance, describing the event as a “reminder of the fragility of our safety.” The IOL coverage, however, remains strictly factual, avoiding any mention of broader racial or political motives — a stark contrast to the narrative emerging from independent commentators like StephanZA.

The Statistical Dilemma

In his video, StephanZA cited official numbers from Justice Minister Ronald Lamola, who reported 53 farmers killed between 2020 and 2024, alongside 101 farm workers. Yet, when adjusted for population size — roughly 32,000 farm owners versus nearly one million workers — the per capita murder rate among farm owners is exponentially higher. These figures raise the uncomfortable question: are these crimes simply opportunistic, or is there an identifiable pattern of targeting?

While the government continues to frame these attacks as part of South Africa’s broader crime epidemic, critics argue that this narrative downplays the demographic consistency of victims and the brutality of the methods used — often involving torture, humiliation, and symbolic violence.

Between Statistics And Silence

The ANC’s official position remains that there is no evidence of a racial or political agenda behind farm murders. Yet, the lack of proportional response, coupled with mainstream media’s muted coverage, continues to erode public trust. The growing divide between official statistics and lived experiences within rural communities fuels suspicion of something deeper — a systemic neglect, if not a quiet acceptance, of violence against a specific group.

As Donald Trump’s comments bring the issue back to the global stage, South Africans find themselves asking hard questions:
If these attacks were reversed demographically, would the coverage — and outrage — be the same?
And if the targeting of white farmers continues under official denial, does silence itself become complicity?

The post Trump Calls Out ANC As Farm Murder Crisis Deepens appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

A senior official at South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), Karen Burger, has been identified as the author of the controversial “Not in Our Name” letter — a document signed by 44 Afrikaner academics, theologians, and journalists distancing themselves from claims of Afrikaner persecution under the ANC government.

DIRCO Official’s Role Confirmed

The letter, initially presented as a civic initiative, was revealed through WhatsApp evidence to have been drafted by Burger, who also approached several potential signatories. While Burger initially denied involvement, sources close to the matter confirmed her authorship after the correspondence became public.

Letter Endorsed By Government Figures

Following publication, the “Not in Our Name” letter received public endorsement from the ANC, President Cyril Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, and DIRCO itself. Their support has drawn attention to possible conflicts of interest, given Burger’s senior government position and her department’s subsequent praise for the document.

Public Reaction And Criticism

Critics argue that Burger’s involvement undermines the letter’s portrayal as an independent expression of Afrikaner sentiment. Opposition commentators described the episode as an example of inappropriate state participation in civil discourse, while supporters of the letter maintain it represents a legitimate rejection of divisive rhetoric within the Afrikaner community.

Division Within The Afrikaner Community

The incident has reignited ideological debate among Afrikaners. Some view the letter as a call for unity and moderation, while others interpret it as a political manoeuvre aligning with government narratives on race, property, and security. Analysts note that these divisions reflect broader tensions over national identity and policy direction in post-apartheid South Africa.

Media Coverage And Accusations Of Bias

News24 and other major outlets prominently reported on the letter as a significant development in the Afrikaner discourse. However, independent observers and civic groups have since questioned whether the media sufficiently scrutinised the origins of the initiative before publication.

Ongoing Inquiry

At the time of publication, DIRCO has not issued a formal statement addressing the ethical implications of Burger’s involvement. Requests for comment from Burger and several signatories went unanswered. It remains unclear whether any internal review will be conducted.

Please sign the counter-letter to that of the “Prominent” Afrikaners: Change.org.

The post DIRCO Official Implicated In “Not In Our Name” Letter Raises Ethical Concerns appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

Durban’s Bluff has become a cautionary tale of state neglect and bureaucratic inertia. Illegal settlements have proliferated since lockdown 2020, spreading onto environmentally sensitive Transnet-owned land and threatening homes, property values, and local businesses.

Despite repeated warnings and site visits, Transnet failed to enforce its own property rights. Now, the Bluff community, led by attorney Allison Schoeman, is demanding:

1. Removal of unlawful occupiers through proper legal channels.

2. Rehabilitation of damaged land.

3. Prevention of future invasions and environmental degradation.

The case highlights systemic governance failures across South Africa, showing that ordinary citizens often must enforce the law themselves. Environmental reports indicate severe erosion, vegetation loss, and structural risk to nearby properties. The Bluff initiative demonstrates a broader need for accountability, transparency, and active enforcement from state-owned entities.

This is not a fight against the poor but against institutional neglect that undermines property rights and governance.

The post Transnet Ignored Warnings — Now Bluff Residents Fight Back appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

The Quiet Repurposing Of A Democratic Institution

The National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC), once a symbol of participatory democracy, now stands accused of betraying its founding principles. Established to deliberate labour and socio-economic policy, NEDLAC’s sudden involvement in firearms legislation has raised red flags among civil society watchdogs.

The council’s original purpose is clear—to ensure consensus between government, labour, business, and community on policies directly affecting economic and employment conditions. Yet somehow, the Firearms Control Amendment Bill, which has nothing to do with labour or economics, has landed on its desk.

Why? And more importantly, who authorised it?

Transparency Abandoned For “Managed Consultation”

Reports indicate that NEDLAC has been reviewing the Bill in secret, excluding major stakeholders such as firearm owners, security professionals, sport shooters, and training bodies. The South African Gunowners’ Association (SAGA) and AfriForum have both criticised the process, calling it “unlawful, unconstitutional, and outside NEDLAC’s mandate.”

Even the Democratic Alliance has weighed in, accusing the council of hiding the Bill “behind closed doors” for over 40 days without any stakeholder engagement. The public, it seems, has been deliberately cut out of the conversation.

If NEDLAC was designed to foster transparency, why is it now operating like a gatekeeper for politically charged legislation? The optics are damning.

A Familiar Pattern Of Circumvention

This isn’t the first time the government has tried to push the Firearms Control Amendment Bill through public resistance. The 2021 version of the Bill was overwhelmingly rejected—with over 118,000 public submissions opposing it. The proposal was shelved after outcry, particularly over sections that sought to remove the right to own firearms for self-defence.

Now, four years later, a nearly identical draft is back—rebranded, reintroduced, and quietly circulated through bureaucratic channels like NEDLAC. It’s a pattern that suggests procedural manipulation—using technical institutions to bypass public accountability.

If democracy depends on participation, what does it mean when participation is replaced with token consultation?

A Controlled Narrative Through Bureaucracy

Portfolio Committee on Police Chair Ian Cameron has raised serious concerns in Parliament over the Ministry of Police’s handling of the Bill. He noted that months had passed with little information on who was consulted, what feedback was received, or why NEDLAC was even involved.

Meanwhile, no visible progress has been made in addressing real firearm issues—including the thousands of lost or stolen police firearms feeding South Africa’s violent crime network. Instead, focus remains fixed on tightening control over legal firearm owners.

This inversion of priorities exposes a growing trust gap between citizens and the state. As one observer put it, “The government wants to disarm those it cannot control, while it fails to control those it arms.”

Democracy At Risk Behind Closed Doors

The use of NEDLAC to advance a politically unpopular gun law without broad consultation isn’t just poor governance—it’s institutional corruption in disguise. A once-democratic body now risks becoming a conduit for government overreach, weaponised against the very citizens it was designed to represent.

When the public is shut out of policy formation, transparency dies. When the process is hidden, freedom follows.

South Africans should be asking:
If they can misuse NEDLAC today, what else can they repurpose tomorrow?

The post Behind Closed Doors: How NEDLAC Became the Government’s Gateway to Gun Control appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.

South Africa’s Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) is quietly pushing for electronic voting systems — a move that, on the surface, looks like “modernisation”. But the reality is darker: around the world, e-voting has collapsed under the weight of fraud, manipulation, and technical chaos.

According to DearSA’s comprehensive report, countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Norway abandoned electronic voting after finding it untrustworthy, hackable, and destabilising to democratic integrity. Even the United States, where billions are poured into election infrastructure, remains plagued by controversy and distrust because of e-voting systems.

The IEC frames this as progress, but in truth, it’s a convenient diversion. Declining turnout in South Africa isn’t because the system is “outdated”—it’s because citizens have lost faith in the politicians they elect. Long queues aren’t caused by “paper ballots” but by poor organisation. And “complex ballots” could easily be solved by distributing watermarked practice ballots or voter education campaigns before election day.

Worse still, millions of South Africans lack access to advanced technology. Expecting communities to master technical voting machines in one election cycle is exclusionary at best, and intentional voter suppression at worst. The IEC’s narrative ignores this, while presenting a failed global experiment as innovation.

So why push a system already proven to fail elsewhere? Perhaps it is easier for a government to blame machines when elections collapse, than to be accountable for its own corruption and mismanagement. The truth is simple: governance is broken, not the paper ballot system.

South Africans have a choice: either accept a dangerous experiment with their democracy or reject it before it takes root.

Read the full report and submit your comment via DearSA here: DearSA Electronic Voting Report.

The post The IEC’s Push For Electronic Voting: A Recipe For Disaster appeared first on Casting Out Deceptions.