Misinformation Accusations That Exposed Parliament: Lex Libertas Turns the Tables

On 26 September 2026, Lex Libertas, the South African-based think tank and advocacy group, planted 3 000 crosses on the National Mall in Washington D.C. Forming a gigantic white cross, the 3 000 smaller crosses, each representing a real victim of South Africa’s brutal farm murders, were a stunning display of profound loss, rural terror and the unspeakable devastation suffered by the country’s rural communities.

According to the South African Human Rights Commission's (SAHRC) Report of the National Investigative Hearing into Safety and Security Challenges in Farming Communities (2015), it is “two-and-a-half times more dangerous to be a farmer than it is to be a member of the police.” The report further notes that “…farmers’ chances of being murdered, as opposed to that of ordinary South African citizens are four times higher”.

Minority communities, whose members are frequently targeted in farm attacks, although not exclusively so, are often subjected to extreme violence, including rape and torture. Political slogans, including the contentious hate chant “Kill the Boer”, have been used during some of these attacks2. A particularly disturbing example is the attack on mother and daughter Alice and Helen Lotter, who endured hours of torture, including sexual assault with broken bottles. In this case, the words “Kill the Boer” were written in the victims' blood on a wall at the home.

The White Cross Project: A Message That Resonated Around the World.

For victims of farm attacks, minority communities and concerned citizens, both in South Africa and abroad, the placing of the crosses represented a moment of unity and collective remembrance. It provided affected communities with an opportunity to unite on an international stage, to mourn those who had lost their lives and to denounce the South African government's long-standing neglect of this crisis.

The response to the project, both from South Africans and the international community, was deeply moving. Messages of support poured in through emails and social media, while ordinary citizens travelled from different parts of the world to attend the vigil and assist with erecting the crosses. Some came to find the crosses bearing the names of loved ones they had lost, while others, having learned of the circumstances, came simply to show their solidarity and help in whatever way they could.

There was no shortage of hands willing to do the work, nor of witnesses who came to hear the truth. The project was, by any measure, an immense success. The point had been made. Affected survivors and those who lost loved ones to farm murders, found comfort in knowing that their pain mattered. Viable solutions were tabled and discussed with senior members of the White House.

The Department of State, unwilling to look away, supported the cause. Samuel D. Samson, Senior Policy Advisor at the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labour at the U.S. Department of State, attended the White Cross Project Conference at the National Press Club on 25 September. While engaged in a Q&A with Dr Ernst Roets, Executive Director of Lex Libertas, Samson reiterated concerns regarding the persecution crisis of minority communities.

Activists and citizens who expose the farm murder crisis face constant vilification. Against that backdrop, the support, solidarity and shared tears from civilians, influencers and professionals meant more than words can say.

The ANC’s Answer to the Truth: Threats and Intimidation.

Though Lex Libertas’s mission in Washington was sombre and distressing, there was also a sense of hope. As the crosses were planted and survivors shared their accounts, it became clear that rural communities were no longer alone.

But amid the hope, transparency and success, a storm was brewing back home. The South African government’s response to the project was visceral. Before any delegation members had returned to African soil, calls for their arrest and charges of treason were being seriously debated by key political figures. Some of the strongest voices calling for serious consequences included Minister of International Relations and Co-Operation Ronald Lamola and several prominent ANC members.

On 8 October, less than two weeks after the crosses were planted, Supra Mahumapelo, Chairperson of Parliament's Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation, had proposed legislation that would effectively allow the ANC regime to strip citizenship from those who continue lobbying internationally over the persecution of minorities back home.

In response to Supra’s letter, Minister Lamola singled out Lex Libertas, Solidarity, AfriForum and the FF Plus political party. The minister endorsed these proposals, stating that “Free agents can’t be allowed to roam with misinformation across the globe about their own country. We will also look into the same issue on our side as the executive and see how we can match your proposals”. In response to this Soviet-era-style attempt to clamp down on political dissent, Dr Ernst Roetspublished an open letter to Lamola, stressing the seriousness of these proposals. He stated that they “constitute nothing other than threats against citizens who do not agree with the political narrative of the ANC and its alliance partners.”

Referring to the Constitutional Court’s 2025 judgment on the unconstitutionality of stripping citizens of their citizenship under certain circumstances, Dr Roets stated:

“A citizen does not possess citizenship at the pleasure of whichever government happens to hold office. It is not a licence that political leaders may threaten to withdraw when a citizen embarrasses the state, challenges an official narrative or seeks support abroad.Indeed, the Constitution could hardly be clearer. Section 20 makes it clear that no citizen may be deprived of citizenship”.

From Memorial to Political Target.

On 19 October, Parliament's response in the form of an open letter to Dr Roets sent shockwaves through South Africa’s free speech champion communities. Penned by Supra Mahumapelo, the letter attempted to address the allegations of “misinformation” the ANC had levelled against its opponents, as Dr Roets had requested. Though it appeared to backpedal on calls to strip citizens of their citizenship, the warped narratives attributed to Lex Libertas, and others who shared its concerns, were stunning.

The letter contained numerous accusations based on twisted arguments Lex Libertas had never made. These included the repeated, false claim that Lex Libertas had spread misinformation, both at home and abroad, about a “white genocide”. Neither Lex Libertas nor any of those singled out by Lamola and Mahumapelo have ever made this claim. These organisations have publicly challenged the accusation, and mainstream media outlets have repeatedly been forced to apologise publicly following Press Ombudsman rulings.

Remarkably, despite these forced acknowledgements by mainstream media, the false accusations continue to be made.

Parliament’s Counterattack: Accusations Without Evidence.

Another issue raised by Mahumapelo was Lex Libertas’s stance on race-based legislation. These discriminatory Acts have harmed South Africa and its economy, affecting not only those directly discriminated against on racial grounds but South Africans in general. Calls to scrap Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE), including among black South Africans, have grown rapidly as it has become evident that these policies enrich mainly the politically connected. Research by Prof. William Gumede of the Wits School of Governance suggested that around R1 trillion had been moved between fewer than just one hundred people since 1994, while poverty, particularly among the black communities these laws were meant to uplift, has increased exponentially.

Opinion polls by the Social Research Foundation (SRF) and Institute of Race Relations (IRR) in 2024 revealed that 68% of respondents, including 60% of ANC voters, wanted race-based appointments to end in favour of merit. Furthermore, 63% of respondents, including 52% of ANC voters, opposed race-based public procurement, favouring state-issued tenders based solely on merit.

In 2026, businessman and ActionSA leader Herman Mashaba minced no words in his opposition to B-BBEE, stating “I don’t think Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment needs to be reformed. It needs to be scrapped.”

According to Gabriel Crouse of the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) and executive director of IRR Legal, South Africa today, over three decades after the fall of Apartheid, is the most race-regulated country in the world.

Despite race being the main factor determining who benefits from race-based legislation, Mahumapelo argues that portraying broad-based black economic empowerment as race-based discrimination warranting foreign sanctions is a “deliberate distortion of a constitutionally mandated redress measure under Section 9(2).”

Dr Roets, like many others who oppose these draconian Acts, rightly argues that constitutional justifications for race-based legislation do not change the fact that these laws determine outcomes by race rather than merit. Dressing an injustice in more palatable words like “redress” or “transformation” does not make it any less unjust.

The Sanctions Lie: Another Straw Man Exposed

Claiming that Lex Libertas has called for broad sanctions on South Africa that would “have real consequences for workers, farmers and the poor” is another blatant distortion of an argument the think tank has never made.

On the contrary, Lex Libertas has repeatedly explained why broad sanctions would further the suffering of ordinary South Africans while doing little to change the behaviour of the political elite. On 24 July 2025, Lex Libertas issued a press release announcing a landmark Washington report on realigning South Africa’s political dispensation. The release explicitly stated that targeted sanctions should be placed on “government leaders, and not society at large”.

In May 2026, Lex Libertas and the New York Young Republican Club (NYYRC) issued a joint press release urging the U.S. administration to use “the Magnitsky Act to impose sanctions against individuals in South Africa responsible for these human rights violations”. Lex Libertas has never advocated punishing ordinary South Africans for the human rights violations of individuals.

When Parliament Rewrites the Constitution.

The irony of Parliament using misinformation to accuse Lex Libertas of misinformation is not lost on defenders of political free speech.

The parliamentary open letter is riddled with further inaccuracies and false accusations, but it is the insertion of an additional restriction into Section 16 of the Constitution this is perhaps the most extraordinary overreach.

Section 16 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of expression, states the following:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes—

(a) freedom of the press and other media;

(b) freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;

(c) freedom of artistic creativity; and

(d) academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.

2. The right in subsection 1. does not extend to—

(a) propaganda for war;

(b) incitement of imminent violence; or

(c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

Remarkably, in what may be one of the most astonishing attempts at gaslighting an entire nation, Mahumapelo altered Section 16(2)(c) to fit the ANC’s own narrative. Instead of the actual wording, Mahumapelo wrote:

“This is not about disagreement. It is about conduct. Freedom of expression under Section 16 does not include propaganda for war, incitement to imminent violence, or advocacy that seeks to deliberately misrepresent the country for material advantage.

In his response to the open letter, Dr Roets confirmed that Lex Libertas accepts the committee’s invitation to defend the White Cross Project before Parliament and challenged its dubious misrepresentation of the Constitution.

Lies, incompetence or a contempt for the Constitution?

To lie so openly in an age when ordinary citizens can fact-check almost anything is deeply alarming. This level of deceit by an ANC MP and committee chairperson points to several possible explanations. For brevity, I will focus on two.

Either the ANC has engaged in misinformation for so long that it now believes it can dictate the law whenever it suits its needs. It is arrogant enough to assume that such blatant alterations will go unchallenged by the mainstream media and Chapter 9 institutions, including the SAHRC, which is ironically tasked with protecting the rights of this country's citizens.

Or, those in power have become so incompetent and constitutionally illiterate that a member of Parliament can call for citizens to be stripped of their civil rights for political dissent without even understanding what those rights entail.

Whether the mainstream media will scrutinise Parliament’s own misrepresentation of the Constitution in the coming weeks will be telling, testing its claims of impartiality and commitment to the truth. But the more important test lies with Parliament itself.

Having invited Lex Libertas to present its evidence, will Supra Mahumapelo honour that invitation and allow the organisation to defend its position publicly, under scrutiny and on the record? Or will the invitation prove to be little more than political grandstanding, designed to discredit critics rather than engage with the substance of their arguments?

The issue at stake here is bigger than Lex Libertas. It concerns whether South Africans can challenge those in power without facing punitive threats, and whether constitutional rights remain protections against government overreach, or become principles that those in power invoke selectively.

Parliament has invited Lex Libertas to make its case. The country should now expect Parliament to honour that invitation.