When Donald Says Jump, Should South Africa Duck?

When Donald Says Jump, Should South Africa Duck?

It’s a question I never thought I’d ask…

But here it is:

Can US President Donald Trump succeed where countless brave South Africans have failed? Can he bring an end to corruption in our country?

And more importantly, does he even have the right to try?

On the surface, you would think that an end to corruption is the ultimate goal; something South Africa desperately needs in order for any kind of meaningful economic recovery to occur.

And yet, this is not a “the end justifies the means” scenario. If what America is proposing actually happens, could the cure be worse than the disease?

In April this year, United States Congressman Ronny Jackson introduced a Bill giving Donald Trump (or any subsequent US President) the necessary tools to impose sanctions on “corrupt South African government officials who choose to support America’s adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran.”

Although not yet fully approved, the Bill, called the US-South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025, recently passed through the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees of the US House of Representatives, bringing its official enactment that much closer.

From what I can see, it appears to have two main angles of attack. The first is political and has its roots in what America sees as South Africa having “brazenly abandoned its relationship with the United States to align with China, Russia, Iran, and terrorist organisations, a betrayal that demands serious consequences.

“This legislation ensures we conduct a comprehensive review of this supposed ‘ally’ while also holding accountable any corrupt officials. The era of governments undermining American interests without repercussions ends now.”

The second is based on what Jackson describes as the ANC’s history of “substantially mismanaging” state resources.

“The ANC-led South African Government has often proven incapable of effectively delivering public services, threatening the South African people and the South African economy,” he said.

Some of the specific incidents mentioned included:

• President Ramaphosa declaring a state of disaster in 2023 over South Africa’s ongoing power crisis, which resulted, according to Jackson, from the ANC’s “chronic mismanagement” of Eskom.
• Transnet’s disrupted rail operations, which put mining companies in particular under significant pressure. Jackson partly attributed this to “malfeasance and corruption” by former Transnet officials.
• Rampant state capture, with Jackson pointing specifically to the damage done to South Africa’s international reputation under former President Jacob Zuma.

The latest advancement of the Bill has, understandably, done more than ruffle a few feathers in Pretoria. ANC leaders have condemned what it described as “bullying,” calling it an affront to South Africa’s sovereignty and its right to pursue an independent foreign policy.

Not that Trump and his yes-men seem remotely concerned about our leaders’ feelings.

So, what happens, then, if the Bill is enacted?

Within 120 days of that happening, the US government will conduct a thorough review of the relationship between South Africa and the United States. Trump will then submit a report to the appropriate congressional committees.

Experts suggest that among the report’s findings will be a list of senior government officials and ANC leaders that Trump believes have engaged in acts of either corruption or human rights abuses, or both.

In addition to President Ramaphosa, some of the other high profile officials facing intense scrutiny include:

1. ANC National Chairperson and Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, Gwede Mantashe. The Zondo Commission report linked him to alleged corrupt dealings with Bosasa (the now-defunct facilities company), including illicit security upgrades at his properties. He has consistently denied the allegations.
2. ANC First Deputy Secretary-General and former Minister of Environmental Affairs, Nomvula Mokonyane. Concerns centre around her alleged involvement with the Bosasa corruption scandal, and, more recently, her proposal to rename Sandton Drive, where the U.S. Consulate is located, to “Leila Khaled Drive.” Khaled is a Palestinian militant associated with plane hijackings and other acts of terrorism.
3. Former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Dr. Naledi Pandor. US lawmakers have accused her of undermining South Africa’s longstanding relationship with the West.
4. Former South African Ambassador to the United States Ibrahim Rasool. America is said to be re-examining his influential role in shaping the ANC’s foreign policy during the Obama administration as part of a broader review of its diplomatic relationship with our country.

If the evidence against these and other officials is deemed to be credible (as covered by the Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act), that will be enough to meet the criteria for sanctions to be imposed.

Many reading this will be too young to remember the impact of economic sanctions imposed on South Africa in the mid-1980s by Commonwealth leaders in response to the Apartheid legislation.

These included a ban on investments in South Africa, as well on agricultural imports. The promotion of South African tourism overseas was prohibited, bank loans to South African companies were banned, consular facilities were withdrawn and imports of coal, iron, steel and uranium from South Africa were stopped.

Forty years later, what could US sanctions on South Africa look like?

“It marks a startling turn of events given the historical context,” says Edward James, a sanctions law expert at Pinsent Masons. “International sanctions played a key role in bringing an end to the oppressive apartheid regime and facilitated the ANC’s rise to power. Now key figures in the same political party face the prospect of being the target.

“Whilst ANC and government officials may have hoped that President Cyril Ramaphosa’s recent charm offensive would have stopped the draft bill, [it] is one step closer to becoming law.

“For individuals, the consequences of being sanctioned are serious. They may face bank accounts being closed, challenges in international travel, and businesses being unwilling, or unable, to engage with them.”

As a forensic investigator, I am naturally vehemently opposed to corruption in any form, especially when it comes at such a cost to the people and economy of our country. And yet surely no one, in all good conscience, could support US sanctions on South Africa, even if, on the surface, they are allegedly aimed at ending corruption.

Trump’s punitive tariffs and withdrawal of monetary aid are already having a significant effect on the wellbeing of many South Africans. Surely additional sanctions are simply going to add to the misery.

I know certain groups within South Africa support the proposed Bill, believing that the sanctions will be targeted only at those people deemed to be corrupt. But it goes deeper than that.

South Africa’s political affiliations as a whole are being questioned, and if the bill is passed, it won’t just be a few individuals who suffer, it will be our entire country.

Fortunately, the bill is still a long way from being fully passed, and our President has adopted a “wait and see attitude.”

“Our bilateral dealings and engagements with the United States will continue, and we’ll talk about all manner of things – including this issue,” he said. “We are very positive that the outcome of our engagements will be comprehensive and all-encompassing, so we can return to good deals with the United States,” he said.

In the meantime, as Edward James says, “we can only hope that common sense and diplomacy prevail, and that the bill does not actually become law.”

What are your thoughts?