Key Takeaways
- Julius Malema dismissed recent anti‑illegal migrant protests as “fighting over useless things,” arguing they do not solve South Africa’s unemployment crisis.
- He contended that removing foreign nationals does not create decent jobs, describing migrant work as exploitative “slave’s jobs” that lack payslips, benefits, or security.
- Malema drew a moral parallel to apartheid, saying expelling foreign children from schools or pregnant women from clinics would repeat the injustices suffered by black South Africans.
- He warned that targeting fellow Africans distracts from the core issue of land ownership, noting that no Zimbabwean or Nigerian in South Africa owns land.
- Malema cautioned that after migrants are blamed, protests could turn against South Africans who do not speak Zulu, fracturing national unity.
- While acknowledging that some foreigners commit crimes, he insisted that law‑breakers should be prosecuted regardless of nationality and urged citizens to address immigration concerns through the Department of Home Affairs, not street demonstrations.
Context and Malema’s Initial Response
At the Economic Freedom Fighters’ Workers’ Day rally in Rustenburg on Friday, Julius Malema directly confronted the growing wave of anti‑illegal migrant protests spearheaded by the March and March Movement. Characterising the demonstrations as misguided, he told protesters, “you are fighting over useless things.” Malema’s remarks came amid nationwide calls for the mass deportation of undocumented foreign nationals, a demand that has gained traction in several cities. By addressing the party’s supporters, he sought to reframe the debate, steering attention away from ethnic scapegoating toward structural economic grievances.
Critique of Protesters’ Priorities
Malema questioned the practical impact of the marches on South Africa’s stubborn unemployment problem. He posed a pointed rhetorical question: after demonstrators chant that they do not want Zimbabweans, Nigerians, or Ghanaians and subsequently close their shops, why do they not celebrate any resulting job creation for South Africans? “Let’s ask a question: after you march and say you don’t want Zimbabweans, Nigerians, and Ghanaians, you close their shops. Why are you then not telling us that you expelled 10 Zimbabweans and were able to give jobs to 10 South Africans?” This challenge underscored his belief that the protests are more symbolic than substantive, failing to translate rhetoric into tangible employment gains.
Job Quality and Migrant Labour
The EFF leader argued that the jobs typically filled by foreign nationals are low‑pay, insecure, and exploitative—what he termed “slave’s jobs.” He emphasized that South Africans aspire to “proper” employment characterized by formal contracts, payslips, pension contributions, and medical aid. By framing migrant work as undesirable and poorly compensated, Malema suggested that expelling these workers would not automatically upgrade the labor market; instead, it would merely vacate positions that many locals deem beneath their aspirations. His commentary highlighted a disconnect between the protesters’ demand for removal and the broader need for quality job creation.
Historical and Moral Analogy to Apartheid
Invoking the nation’s painful past, Malema asked rhetorically how one could feel pride as a father after removing another black child from school—a practice reminiscent of apartheid‑era expulsions. He declared, “I will never do it. I am not going to take a pregnant woman out of a clinic because she is not South African.” This appeal to conscience aimed to stigmatize the anti‑migrant stance as a revival of racial injustice, urging protesters to reconsider actions that echo the discrimination black South Africans once endured. By linking current rhetoric to historical oppression, Malema sought to mobilize moral resistance against xenophobic measures.
Land Ownership as the Real Issue
Malema shifted the focus from immigration to land, asserting that no Zimbabwean or Nigerian residing in South Africa owns land. He warned that protesters were being misled into fighting the wrong battles, suggesting that the true source of economic disparity lies in land ownership patterns rather than the presence of foreign nationals. By redirecting attention to agrarian reform and equitable land distribution, he attempted to elevate the debate from ethnic antagonism to a structural critique of wealth and resource allocation.
Warning Against Internal Division
The EFF leader further cautioned that scapegoating foreigners could eventually turn inward, with protesters targeting fellow South Africans who do not speak Zulu. He warned that the logic of exclusion is expansive: once the narrative of “us versus them” gains traction, it can be applied to any perceived outsider within the nation’s borders. This warning served as a strategic reminder that xenophobic rhetoric risks fracturing social cohesion and igniting new internal conflicts, ultimately undermining the very unity protesters claim to protect.
Crime, Law, and the Call for Legal Channels
While acknowledging that some foreign nationals commit crimes, Malema maintained that South African citizens are equally capable of breaking the law. He insisted that any individual—regardless of documentation status—who violates the law should face appropriate legal consequences. Rather than resorting to street protests, he urged citizens to channel their grievances to the Department of Home Affairs, advocating for a lawful, procedural approach to illegal immigration. This position underscored the EFF’s broader commitment to rule‑of‑law solutions over populist, extralegal actions.