Key Takeaways
- The March and March Movement alleges that a warrant of arrest has been issued for its leader, Jacinta Ngobese‑Zuma, and SA First Forum acting CEO Xolani Zuma, with possible detention by Friday.
- The group claims the arrests are politically motivated and tied to its nationwide protests ahead of the November 4 local government elections.
- Both the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) and the South African Police Service referred queries to each other, providing no substantive response at the time of publication.
- The movement accuses the Presidency of attempting to intimidate civil society and criticises KwaZulu‑Natal IFP Premier Thami Ntuli and ANC leadership for deploying forces against peaceful protesters and arresting activists, including students.
- Despite the looming legal threat, the movement vows to proceed with peaceful marches on Thursday, demanding stricter border controls, deportation of undocumented foreigners, and a national disaster declaration on illegal immigration.
- Additional demands include deploying the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) to curb illegal mining in several provinces and enacting municipal bylaws that reserve township and informal trading for South African‑owned small businesses.
Background and Allegations of Imminent Arrest
The March and March Movement, a civil‑society coalition, announced on Wednesday that its national spokesperson, Sandile Dube, had disclosed that a warrant of arrest had been issued for the organization’s leader, Jacinta Ngobese‑Zuma, and for Xolani Zuma, the acting chief executive of the SA First Forum. According to Dube, the warrant suggests that both individuals could be taken into custody as early as Friday. The movement framed the impending arrests as a direct response to its recent series of nationwide protests, which have focused on issues such as border security, corruption, and the protection of South African citizens’ livelihoods. By publicising the alleged warrant, the movement seeks to highlight what it perceives as an escalating pattern of state repression against dissenting voices.
Details of the Warrant and Anticipated Timeline
Dube’s statement indicated that the warrant had been formally issued by judicial authorities, although he did not specify the court or the exact charges underpinning the order. He emphasized that the movement’s leadership had been notified of the warrant’s existence and that legal counsel was being consulted to prepare a defence. The spokesperson warned that if the arrests proceed as anticipated, they would occur within a 48‑hour window, placing the activists at risk of detention before the end of the week. This timeline adds urgency to the movement’s call for public solidarity and for any interested parties to monitor the situation closely, given the potential impact on planned protests and advocacy efforts scheduled for the coming days.
Institutional Response and Lack of Clarity
When approached for comment, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) directed inquiries to the South African Police Service, while the police, in turn, referred the questions back to the NPA. Neither institution offered a clear confirmation or denial of the existence of the arrest warrant, nor did they disclose any details regarding the alleged offences. This reciprocal deflection left the public and media without an official statement, fueling speculation about the motivations behind the legal action. The absence of a transparent response from both the prosecutorial and law‑enforcement arms has been interpreted by the March and March Movement as indicative of a coordinated effort to suppress its activities without providing substantive legal justification.
Link to Protests and Accusations Against the Presidency
The movement contends that the purported arrests are directly linked to its recent protest actions, which have called for stronger border controls, stricter enforcement of immigration laws, and greater accountability for corruption. In its statement, the March and March Movement accused the Presidency of attempting to intimidate civil society ahead of the November 4 local government elections, suggesting that the state is using legal mechanisms to quell dissent that could influence voter sentiment. By framing the arrests as a pre‑emptive strike, the movement seeks to portray the government as fearful of losing electoral support due to growing public dissatisfaction with its handling of immigration, crime, and economic governance.
Reference to an Executive Committee Meeting Discussion
Adding a layer of intrigue, Dube revealed that an executive committee meeting of what the movement described as a “failing political movement” had taken place roughly three months prior to the current developments. During that meeting, officials allegedly debated whether the leaders of the March and March Movement should be arrested before or after the upcoming elections. The disclosure of this internal discussion is intended to demonstrate that the possibility of arrest had been contemplated well in advance, reinforcing the claim that the legal action is not a spontaneous reaction to recent protests but rather a pre‑planned maneuver tied to the electoral calendar.
Call to President Ramaphosa and Criticism of Provincial Leaders
In response to the alleged threats, the movement issued a direct appeal to President Cyril Ramaphosa, urging him to distance himself from what it characterised as political interference in the judiciary and law‑enforcement processes. The March and March Movement also levelled criticism at KwaZulu‑Natal IFP Premier Thami Ntuli and the African National Congress (ANC) leadership, accusing them of authorising the deployment of security forces against peaceful protesters and of overseeing the arrest of activists, including university students. These accusations are aimed at highlighting a broader pattern of alleged heavy‑handed tactics employed by both provincial and national authorities to suppress dissent and maintain political control ahead of the elections.
Planned Peaceful Marches and Core Demands
Undeterred by the looming legal threat, Sandile Dube affirmed that the March and March Movement would proceed with its scheduled peaceful marches on Thursday. The demonstrations are designed to pressure the government to prioritize the interests of South African citizens, to reinforce border security, and to confront corruption that the movement argues undermines national development. Central to the protesters’ demands is the immediate deportation of undocumented foreign nationals, a revision of the legislation governing the Border Management Authority to enhance its effectiveness, and the declaration of illegal immigration as a national disaster—a classification that would unlock additional resources and enable more stringent enforcement measures.
Specific Policy Demands: Deportation, Border Management, and Disaster Declaration
The movement’s platform calls for a comprehensive overhaul of immigration policy. It argues that the current legal framework allows too many individuals to reside in the country without proper documentation, contributing to strain on public services, job markets, and social cohesion. By advocating for the deportation of undocumented foreigners, the movement seeks to reclaim jobs and resources for South African citizens. Additionally, it demands amendments to the Border Management Authority Act that would empower the agency with greater operational autonomy, improved intelligence‑sharing capabilities, and stricter penalties for those who facilitate illegal cross‑border movement. Declaring illegal immigration a national disaster, according to the movement, would trigger emergency funding streams, allow for the rapid deployment of personnel and equipment, and facilitate a whole‑of‑government response to what it describes as an existential threat to national sovereignty.
Demand for SANDF Deployment Against Illegal Mining and Municipal Trading Bylaws
Beyond immigration, the March and March Movement urges the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) to be deployed to regions plagued by illegal mining activities, specifically naming Gauteng, North West, Mpumalanga, the Free State, Limpopo, and the Northern Cape. The movement contends that illegal mining exacerbates environmental degradation, fuels violent crime, and deprives the state of valuable mineral revenues. By involving the SANDF, the protesters hope to secure a coordinated, decisive response that combines law‑enforcement expertise with military logistics. Finally, the movement calls on municipalities to enact bylaws that reserve township and informal trading spaces exclusively for South African‑owned small businesses, arguing that such measures would stimulate local entrepreneurship, reduce unfair competition from foreign‑operated vendors, and strengthen community‑based economies.