Briefing:  MK Party Private Member’s Bill – Repeal of Constitutional Section 235 (Self-Determination for Cultural/Linguistic Communities) 

Reference: Constitution Twenty-Fourth Amendment Bill, 2026 (PMB sponsored by Mr Mzwanele Manyi, MP, MK Party)

Date: 31 March 2026

Source Summary: Government Gazette / parliamentary notices (29–30 March 2026), PMG alerts, ministerial parliamentary responses (March 2026), official Justice Department records, VF Plus statement, and open-source media reporting. All data current as of 31 March 2026.

  1. Executive Summar

The uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) Party, via MP Mzwanele Manyi, has formally gazetted (approximately 29 March 2026) its intention to introduce the Constitution Twenty-Fourth Amendment Bill, 2026 as a Private Member’s Bill. The sole substantive provision is the outright repeal of Section 235 of the 1996 Constitution.

The bill’s pre-tabling explanatory summary (published as required under National Assembly Rule 295(2)(a) read with s 73(2) of the Constitution) argues that the Bill of Rights (ss 30–31) already provides comprehensive protection for language, culture, and religion, rendering Section 235 redundant and dangerous because it allegedly creates “confusion, contradictions and ambiguity” and gives “the false impression that the Constitution allows cultural enclaves or semi-autonomous entities” that could operate inconsistently with the Bill of Rights.

Public comments are invited until 26 April 2026 (30-day period). The move is explicitly framed as a direct response to recent statements by Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi (ANC), who, in replies to written parliamentary questions from EFF MP Mr Carl Niehaus and during 30th-anniversary Constitution debates, described Orania as an “exclusionist, racist enclave” that misuses Section 235 to perpetuate racial segregation akin to the Group Areas Act of 1950.

Key Assessment: This is the most explicit frontal assault yet on a core 1996 constitutional compromise clause negotiated to secure Afrikaner buy-in to the final Constitution. While still at the notification stage, the bill’s advancement would require a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly (and potentially NCOP involvement). In the current fragmented Parliament, passage is not assured but would represent a major escalation in the contestation over minority cultural rights versus unitary nation-building. Short-term effect: heightened ethnic mobilisation and legal/political friction within the GNU.

  1. Precise Text of Section 235 (Target of Repeal)

“The right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination, as manifested in this Constitution, does not preclude, within the framework of this right, recognition of the notion of the right of self-determination of any community sharing a common cultural and language heritage, within a territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way, determined by national legislation.”

No national legislation has ever been enacted to give operational effect to the territorial or “any other way” self-determination contemplated in the section.

  1. Granular Legislative Status and Procedure
  • Sponsor: Mr Mzwanele Manyi, MP (MK Party).
  • Gazetting / Notification Date: 29 March 2026 (GeN notice published in parliamentary channels and referenced in PMG and media on 30 March 2026).
  • Bill Title: Constitution Twenty-Fourth Amendment Bill, 2026.
  • Pre-Tabling Requirement Satisfied: Explanatory summary published; 30-day public comment period opened.
  • Submission Details: Written representations must reach the Speaker of the National Assembly by 26 April 2026. Delivery options:
    • Hand: Africa House Building, Cape Town
    • Post: PO Box 15, Cape Town, 8000
    • Email: [email protected] (as per official notice).
  • Next Steps if Tabled: Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development scrutiny → National Assembly debate and vote (two-thirds required) → possible NCOP process → presidential assent. Constitutional Court challenges are highly probable post-passage on grounds of undermining the founding bargain.
  1. Detailed Rationale in MK Party’s Explanatory Summary (Direct Quotes)

The notice states that the Bill of Rights already safeguards:

  • freedom to use a language of choice;
  • freedom to participate in a cultural life of choice;
  • freedom to practise a religion of choice;

and that these rights may be exercised:

  • “with other members of a cultural, religious or linguistic community”;
  • by joining and maintaining “associations and other organs of civil society, in a manner that is consistent with the Bill of Rights”.

It then asserts that Section 235:

  • “Introduces confusion, contradictions and ambiguity into the constitutional framework by providing a theoretical basis (for the) self-determination of communities”;
  • creates “the false impression that the Constitution allows cultural enclaves or semi-autonomous entities”;
  • allows “these enclaves or entities to operate in a manner inconsistent with the Bill of Rights”;
  • does so “despite the (constitutional) requirement that this notion of a right to self-determination of a community must be determined by legislation, which would subject such determination to public scrutiny and parliamentary input”.
  1. Trigger: Minister Kubayi’s Statements (March 2026)

Minister Kubayi’s position crystallised in:

  • Written reply to EFF MP Carl Niehaus’s parliamentary question (exact date not public but post-10 March 2026).
  • Remarks tied to the Constitution’s 30th-anniversary National Assembly plenary (10 March 2026) and related events.

Key elements of her position (paraphrased from official responses and reported in full by VF Plus):

  • Orania is an “exclusionist, racist enclave” that uses cultural self-determination as a “cover to perpetuate their sense of superiority and exclusivity”.
  • Afrikaners “live freely and are under no threat” and therefore do not qualify under the ordinary definition of self-determination (historically reserved for victim communities).
  • Section 235 does not grant any community the right to “territorially self-exclude” from the nation; doing so would effectively reinstate the Group Areas Act of 1950.
  • Claims of cultural self-determination in this context are “legally inaccurate” and perpetuate “racial segregation, social fragmentation and inequalities”.

The MK Party notice explicitly references these statements as prompting the bill.

  1. Stakeholder Reactions – Detailed Positions

Freedom Front Plus (VF Plus – GNU partner):

Strongest and most detailed rebuttal (full statement issued late March 2026). Condemns Kubayi for attempting to “unilaterally breach the 1994 agreement” and “strip Section 235 of its meaning”.

Key arguments:

  • Section 235 was deliberately inserted because Afrikaners feared “tyranny of the majority” regarding identity and economic opportunities.
  • References prior government undertakings (President Thabo Mbeki and Minister Valli Moosa) that the realisation of Afrikaner self-determination “depends solely on Afrikaners themselves”.
  • Rejects the “victim communities only” interpretation of self-determination; argues all communities are entitled to it.
  • Defends Orania as breaking colonial cheap-labour patterns (all work done by Afrikaners themselves).
  • Has formally written to the Minister and invited her to a “serious discussion” on the theory, South African background, and practical reality of self-determination as embodied in Orania.

MK Party: Frames the repeal as closing a loophole that enables “racially exclusive enclaves”.

Other parties: Limited public statements as of 31 March 2026; DA and other GNU partners expected to oppose on minority-rights grounds. No ANC caucus position released yet (Minister Kubayi’s views are personal/official but not yet binding party policy).

  1. Historical and Legal Granularity
  • Negotiation Origin: Inserted during 1995–1996 Constitutional Assembly / Multi-Party Negotiating Process as a deliberate compromise to address Afrikaner (and potentially Zulu or other) concerns after the interim Constitution’s self-determination provisions.
  • Judicial Interpretation: Never tested in the Constitutional Court; no enabling legislation passed in 30 years.
  • Practical Application: Solely invoked by the Afrikaner settlement of Orania (established 1991, population ~2,500). No other territorial entities have successfully claimed rights under it.
  1. Potential Impacts and Risk Matrix
  1. Recommendations / Immediate Monitoring Points
  1. Comment Period: Closely track submissions closing 26 April 2026; prepare or coordinate counter-submissions emphasising the 1996 compact.
  2. Tabling Date: Monitor Order Paper and NA announcements post-26 April.
  3. Portfolio Committee: Justice & Constitutional Development – watch for public hearings.
  4. GNU Dynamics: Assess ANC position versus VF+; potential for ministerial clarification or distancing.
  5. Legal Pre-emption: Prepare for possible interdict or declaratory relief if the bill advances.
  6. Broader Scan: Monitor Orania/AfriForum statements, social media mobilisation, and any parallel moves by EFF or MK on related cultural issues.

This report is derived exclusively from publicly available primary sources as of 31 March 2026. The 30-day comment window makes this a live and rapidly evolving matter. Further granular updates will be issued upon tabling or major stakeholder responses.

Copyright © 2026 Willshir. All rights reserved. This briefing may be freely shared only in its complete, unaltered form, including this notice. No excerpts, modifications, or partial versions permitted. Enquiries: OverWatch@willshir.net