Labour Party declares war on Ramaphosa's National Dialogue

THE Labour Party of South Africa has launched a blistering legal and political offensive against President Cyril Ramaphosa’s controversial National Dialogue, branding it an unconstitutional, fiscally reckless, and elitist manoeuvre designed to sideline Parliament and the working class.

The Party’s urgent High Court application, filed on June 18, seeks to interdict the process, citing its estimated R700 million to R800m cost as “unjustifiable” amid South Africa’s deepening crises.

Announced by Ramaphosa on June 10, the National Dialogue proposes a two-phase convention — first in August to “set the agenda”, followed by a 2026 summit — to address national challenges. But the Labour Party argues it is a redundant, unlawful parallel to Parliament and institutions such as the National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac).

“South Africa doesn’t need another elite summit behind closed doors,” said acting Secretary-General Lindi Mkhumbane. “We already have Parliament, Nedlac, and civil society platforms. What we don’t have is political will from the ruling elite to act on the people’s demands.”

The court papers demand:- A declaratory order that the Dialogue is unconstitutional and irrational.- An interdict blocking public funds for the process, including payments to the appointed “Eminent Persons Group”.- A review of all executive decisions initiating the Dialogue.

The case has escalated into a showdown between the Labour Party and a coalition of high-profile civil society groups aligned with the state. On June 30 the Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation, the Strategic Dialogue Group, and the Thabo Mbeki, Steve Biko, and Albert Luthuli Foundations filed to intervene, defending the Dialogue.

“These are not bystanders. These are political actors with deep ties to the post-apartheid ruling class,” fumed interim Labour Party President Joseph Mathunjwa. “Their role isn’t to unite the nation, it’s to preserve an elite consensus forged behind closed doors.”

The Foundations submitted answering affidavits before being granted leave to intervene, a move Mathunjwa described as “arrogance, plain and simple”. He accused them of betraying their legacies: “The same communities (these leaders) stood for are ravaged by gender-based violence (GBV), unemployment, and poverty. Now these elites want a ‘dialogue’ instead of action.”

The Labour Party claims that the dialogue is a smokescreen for IMF-driven austerity, including Eskom’s privatisation and neoliberal reforms. “This is a rubber stamp for IMF instructions, nothing more,” Mathunjwa said. “If Parliament is functional, why create a new platform? This isn’t inclusion, it’s circumvention.”

The state’s late filing of answering papers — missed deadlines and procedural delays — has further fueled suspicions. “They missed the deadline, and now they’re bringing in reinforcements to stall,” Mathunjwa said. The case, initially set for July 1, was postponed to July 4.

At its core, the Labour Party’s challenge questions whether South Africa’s democracy can withstand executive overreach and elite capture. “The President cannot wake up and decide to allocate R800m without parliamentary scrutiny,” Mkhumbane argued. “This is executive overreach masquerading as participation.”

With the hearing imminent, the Labour Party has called for public support, urging South Africans to reject what it described as a “PR stunt” while the country burns. “Rape, violence, and poverty don’t need a dialogue, they need action,” Mathunjwa said. “We’re ready to meet them in court.”