A recent Oval Office meeting between US President Donald Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has drawn mixed reactions, particularly over remarks made by billionaire Johann Rupert, who was part of the South African delegation. Rupert’s comments on crime in South Africa—emphasizing its impact on all citizens while omitting its disproportionate effect on Black communities—have been criticized as a selective narrative. While some viewed his participation as an attempt to ease US-SA relations, others, particularly within the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), suspect his motives were tied to protecting his vast business empire.
Adding fuel to the fire, an old allegation has resurfaced: claims of a secret meeting between Rupert and Floyd Shivambu, the former EFF deputy president and now secretary-general of the MK Party. The allegation, first reported in journalist Pieter du Toit’s book, suggests the two met at Rupert’s Tokara wine estate in Stellenbosch to discuss business ventures, including a potential hospital project in Limpopo, while also exchanging political insights (News24, 2019).
At the time, Shivambu was a senior EFF leader—a party that has long branded Rupert as a symbol of “white monopoly capital.” Both men have denied any improper relationship, with Shivambu insisting he never sought or received favors from Rupert. However, the resurfacing of these claims has led to fresh speculation among EFF members, with some alleging that Shivambu’s later departure for the MK Party may have been influenced by hidden dealings. More explosively, a faction within the EFF has gone further, suggesting Shivambu was a “mole” planted to destabilize the party—though no evidence has been presented to support this claim.
A Convenient Narrative or a Legitimate Concern?
Rupert’s remarks in Washington—acknowledging crime but sidestepping its racial dimensions—have been interpreted by critics as a strategic move to align with Trump’s administration while downplaying systemic issues. Given his extensive business interests, including luxury brands (Richemont) and investments (Remgro), some argue his statements were more about risk mitigation than honest discourse.
The renewed focus on the alleged Shivambu-Rupert meeting has deepened suspicions among EFF supporters, who see it as potential proof of backroom political maneuvering. If true, such a meeting would raise serious questions about political loyalties and corporate influence in South Africa’s volatile landscape. However, without concrete evidence, the claims remain speculative—and risk being weaponized for political infighting rather than fostering accountability.
A Need for Transparency in an Era of Distrust
This controversy underscores broader tensions in South African politics, where historical inequalities and economic power imbalances fuel deep-seated mistrust. The EFF’s rhetoric against “white monopoly capital” makes any association between its leaders and figures like Rupert politically explosive. Yet, unverified accusations—such as Shivambu being a “saboteur”—threaten to further polarize discourse without substantiation.
As South Africa navigates its complex socio-political terrain, this episode serves as a reminder of the need for transparency in dealings between business and political elites. Without it, conspiracy theories and factional battles may overshadow legitimate debates about inequality, governance, and who truly holds power in the country.
For now, the allegations remain just that—allegations. But in a climate where perception often outweighs proof, the fallout could linger long after the headlines fade.
