CIAG responds to Ramaphosa on Cape Independence
The Cape Independence Advocacy Group (CIAG) notes the comments being attributed to President Ramaphosa in the media. As of yet, the full text of these comments has not been made publicly available by the Presidency and therefore the CIAG can only respond to media reports. We will respond further if necessary when we receive the full text.
The CIAG welcomes that the discussion around Cape Independence has now become so firmly established in South Africa’s political discourse that the President has once again been required to officially comment on it.
At face value, the President’s comments appear to be disingenuous:
On a referendum
The President reportedly states that he has no intention of considering a proposal or holding a referendum on the secession of any part of the country.
By his own admission, none of the parties in the Government of National Unity (GNU) have asked him to call a referendum, and likely neither has anyone else. Section 127(2)(f) of the Constitution grants Provincial Premiers the powers to call provincial referendums and therefore any official referendum on Cape Independence would be called by the Western Cape Premier and not the President.
On 23 September 2021, we hand delivered a letter, by appointment, to President Ramaphosa’s representative informing him that on the 15 September 2021, we had formally requested Premier Winde to call a referendum on Cape. We provided President Ramaphosa with a copy of that request.
Since Premier Winde has thus far refused to call such a referendum, we are currently making preparations to hold our own referendum in the Western Cape following the successful example of Veneto in Italy. Few, if any, referendums are legally binding so who calls it is less relevant than its credibility. As both the Supreme Courts of both Canada and the United Kingdom have stated, the power of referendums in a democracy is not the legally binding nature of the referendum, but the establishment of the democratic will of the people which cannot easily be ignored.
Funding is currently the primary obstacle to the holding of a private referendum and the CIAG invites potential funders to get in touch.
On the indivisibility of the Republic
The blind adherence to the absolute sanctity and supremacy of the Constitution is flawed, as can be demonstrated by the South African Government’s own argument and conduct.
South Africa, like every other state, is bound by international law. There is no opt-out clause. The right of self-determination, alongside others including the prohibition of genocide and the prohibition of racial discrimination and apartheid, is a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens) which South Africa is obliged to uphold. Other states then have an obligation (erga omnes) to step in and ensure that South Africa honours this obligation should they fail to do so.
The President cannot simply quote an isolated provision of the South African Constitution and in doing so waive away the rights of all people to self-determination, notwithstanding that in any event section 235 of the Constitution recognises that the right of self-determination in South Africa can be exercised “within a territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way”.
That the President understands this very well is straightforward to demonstrate. The President has repeatedly called for a Palestinian state based upon the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, despite the fact that this will infringe upon the territorial integrity of the state of Israel and conflict with Israel’s internal laws. Further, South Africa’s case against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is based upon South Africa’s erga omnes obligation to ensure that Israel abides by the peremptory norms of international law on genocide.
The President also supports Western Saharan independence from Morocco, but does not support Taiwan independence from China or Somaliland’s independence from Somalia. These double standards clearly establish that the President is determining his various positions on self-determination based upon political and not legal considerations. He is entitled to do so, but then he should be honest as opposed to hiding behind the law when it suits him and ignoring it when it does not.
On unity
We note with great interest that the President cites his duty to promote the unity of the nation. Had the President and the ANC actually fulfilled this obligation over the last three decades, there would not be a Cape Independence movement to reckon with.
The President leads a political party which overwhelmingly and disproportionately draws its support and representatives from one ethnic group. He and his party have then used that ethnic group’s numerical superiority to systematically discriminate against ethnic minorities, and to pack the superior courts with ideologically compliant judges to place a veil of legitimacy over naked racial discrimination. There is no necessity or justification to maintain apartheid style race laws thirty years after the end of apartheid. The President’s personal legitimacy is further eroded by the fact that he has personally and directly leveraged those race laws to become a multi-billionaire.
Beyond race based policy, the President and his party have denied the people of the Western Cape devolved powers even though they voted for them and requested them, has undermined property rights, and has marginalised Afrikaans through the BELA Act and the mothballing of the Volkstaatraad. If his intention is to promote unity, he has a very funny way of going about it.
DATE: 31 December 2025
