
In a heated parliamentary session on Tuesday, South Africa’s Chief of the National Defence Force, General Rudzani Maphwanya, and Minister of Defense Angie Motshekga were grilled by lawmakers over the country’s military involvement in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Members of Parliament (MPs) expressed deep concerns about the nature of the deployment, questioning whether South African National Defence Force (SANDF) troops were truly engaged in a peacekeeping mission or being used for offensive operations aligned with President Cyril Ramaphosa’s alleged mineral interests in the region.
At the center of the debate was a recent military confrontation in Goma, where South African troops found themselves caught in the crossfire between the Rwandan military and the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC). In response to speculation that South African soldiers had been deliberately targeted by Rwanda, General Maphwanya provided a detailed account, making it clear that Rwanda was not responsible for an intentional attack against South African forces.
The incident unfolded when FARDC elements stationed inside Goma Airport launched multiple rocket attacks toward Rwanda, triggering a retaliatory response from Rwandan forces. South African troops, positioned at their base in the area, were initially caught off guard by the incoming fire.
“The first report I gave to the minister was that we were under fire because the shells were landing on my base,” General Maphwanya told MPs. “The first thing the commander said was, ‘Contact, contact.’ When I asked what was happening, he initially reported that we were being fired at from Rwanda. However, within minutes, we realized it was an exchange of fire between the two.”
Recognizing the critical importance of battlefield communication, South African forces quickly established contact with the Rwandan side. “We were told, ‘No, we are not firing at you,’” Maphwanya added, confirming that South African forces were not deliberately targeted but had been caught in the crossfire of an escalating confrontation.
To prevent further confusion, South African commanders took immediate action to differentiate their forces from FARDC troops. In the heat of battle, they decided to use a white flag to mark their position, a symbol historically associated with surrender but, in this case, meant to signal neutrality and avoid further misidentification.
“The explanation given by the commander was satisfactory,” Maphwanya said. “After the flag was raised, the fire ceased falling onto the positions of my troops. That means the objective was achieved.”
https://x.com/byukavuba/status/1886789324567445775?s=48&t=aoIWb0d2aYjJcpLviyvTIA
While the parliamentary briefing clarified the immediate military incident, it did little to quell broader concerns among South African MPs regarding the country’s ongoing involvement in the DRC. Lawmakers accused President Cyril Ramaphosa of misleading the nation about the true nature of the deployment, arguing that the SANDF is not engaged in peacekeeping but rather in an offensive military operation.
Some MPs went further, alleging that South African troops were in the DRC to protect Ramaphosa’s mineral interests, supposedly linked to his family and business allies. These claims echo growing suspicions that South Africa’s intervention is less about regional stability and more about securing economic advantages, particularly in Congo’s resource-rich eastern provinces.
During the briefing, opposition MPs demanded transparency on the real motivations behind the deployment and questioned whether South African soldiers were being used as pawns in a larger geopolitical and economic game. “This is not a peacekeeping mission. This is an offensive operation,” one MP declared, pointing to evidence of direct military engagements and the strategic positioning of South African troops near key mining zones.
Despite the mounting criticism, Minister of Defense Angie Motshekga defended the government’s decision, insisting that the deployment was necessary for regional security and in line with South Africa’s commitments to the Southern African Development Community (SADC). However, she struggled to address specific allegations about Ramaphosa’s personal stake in the region’s resources, further fueling skepticism among lawmakers.
The lack of clear information about casualties has further aggravated tensions. The remains of 14 South African soldiers killed in the conflict more than a week ago are due to be returned home on Wednesday, according to the SANDF. However, reports indicate that the true number of dead soldiers is far higher, with some sources claiming that more than 50 troops have been killed. Reflecting frustration over the government’s lack of transparency, MPs in the committee hearing demanded to know when the dead and wounded would be brought home.
“I got a message to say there is assurance that the repatriation of our members is going to take place tomorrow,” General Maphwanya said. He did not provide further details.
Sources have also revealed that Rwanda had earlier offered to assist in the repatriation efforts, but President Ramaphosa declined the offer due to political considerations and national pride. This decision has raised further questions about South Africa’s handling of the situation, with critics arguing that pragmatic cooperation should have taken precedence over political posturing, especially when the lives of soldiers were at stake.
https://x.com/safarikizito/status/1886776412717056045?s=46
As scrutiny over South Africa’s involvement in the DRC intensifies, the government faces mounting pressure to justify the mission to both Parliament and the public. With growing casualties, unanswered questions about mineral interests, and accusations of deception, Ramaphosa’s administration finds itself increasingly cornered.
The revelation that Rwanda did not target South African troops may have clarified one aspect of the conflict, but it does little to address the larger, more pressing question: What exactly is South Africa fighting for in the DRC? Until these concerns are fully addressed, the controversy surrounding the SANDF’s role in the region is unlikely to fade anytime soon.
Post Views: 110