Julius Malema on The Motherhood Network: Immigration, Corruption and the Local Government Test
Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema has used a wide-ranging interview on The Motherhood Network to set out how he believes local government should work, defend his position on immigration and argue that corruption and weak state capacity — rather than foreign nationals — sit at the heart of many of South Africa’s failures. The interview, hosted by Nandi Madida and published on 18 October, has drawn significant attention online. It forms part of The Motherhood Network’s election-season series engaging political leaders ahead of South Africa’s 2026 local government elections. The platform makes clear that the conversations are not endorsements, but an effort to give audiences direct access to competing political perspectives.
That framing matters because the interview moves well beyond conventional campaign talking points. Malema is challenged on service delivery, immigration, crime, corruption, social grants and the credibility of the EFF itself. One of the clearest themes is local government delivery. Malema argues that EFF-led municipalities would prioritise reliable drinking water, more affordable electricity and clinics operating around the clock. He repeatedly frames these issues around the daily burden carried by women and families, particularly in households where mothers are responsible for accessing water, managing electricity costs and seeking healthcare for children.
Those priorities are consistent with the EFF’s public 2026 election messaging, which has highlighted water, affordable electricity, healthcare and 24-hour clinics as central service-delivery commitments. But the interview becomes more contested when the discussion turns to immigration. Madida puts directly to Malema a concern frequently expressed in South African public debate: that communities already struggling with unemployment, crime and strained public services may feel unable to absorb additional pressure from undocumented migration. Malema rejects the idea that foreign nationals are the primary cause of those failures. His argument is rooted in Pan-Africanism.
He describes modern African borders as products of colonial history and maintains that unemployment, deteriorating hospitals and weak services are fundamentally problems of governance and state capacity rather than migration itself. The exchange is notable because Madida does not leave the argument unchallenged. She raises questions about undocumented migration, crime, pressure on public hospitals and whether the state should know who is living within its borders. Malema ultimately supports documenting undocumented migrants so that authorities know who they are, where they live and how they can be traced, while arguing that immigration enforcement should remain within the law rather than being carried out by civilians.
South Africa’s migration picture is more complex than either political extreme often suggests. Statistics South Africa has estimated that international migrants make up a relatively small share of the country’s population, with most coming from neighbouring Southern African countries. Those figures do not settle the political debate over migration, but they provide useful scale. They also illustrate why claims about immigrants being responsible for unemployment, crime or collapsing public services require evidence rather than assumption. Corruption becomes the second major fault line in the discussion.
Malema repeatedly argues that public anger should be directed at officials who misuse state resources. In discussing shortages in hospitals, he says the central question should be whether money intended for medicines, infrastructure and services was properly spent, rather than assuming that migrants caused the shortage. Later, Madida presses him directly on his own credibility and asks how voters can trust that the EFF would govern differently. Malema responds by defending his party’s record and rejecting suggestions that references to political figures in commissions or investigations automatically establish corruption.
Those are his claims and political arguments; they should not be confused with independent findings of fact. The interview also touches on social welfare. Malema argues that grants belong to the state rather than any political party and points to the Constitution as the foundation for social assistance. On that point, the constitutional position is clear. Section 27 recognises the right of everyone to access social security, including appropriate social assistance for those unable to support themselves and their dependants, subject to reasonable measures and available resources. That distinction is particularly relevant during elections. Social grants are public programmes funded through the state; they are not benefits owned by a governing party.
Beyond policy, the episode also gives viewers a more personal account of Malema’s upbringing. He speaks at length about being raised by his mother and grandmother, the poverty and crime around him as a child, his mother’s epilepsy and the responsibilities he assumed at a young age. That part of the interview does not prove or disprove any of his political positions. It does, however, provide context for how Malema describes his political identity and why he repeatedly frames policy questions around poverty, mothers and working-class households.
For voters, the value of the conversation lies less in whether they agree with Malema and more in the opportunity to hear his positions tested across several difficult subjects in one place. His answers on immigration will remain controversial. His promises on municipal services will ultimately depend on implementation, budgets and institutional capacity. His arguments about corruption must be judged against evidence and the record of public institutions. That is where the interview becomes useful beyond personality politics.
It places some of South Africa’s most contested questions — who should be blamed for failing services, how undocumented migration should be managed, what municipalities should prioritise and how political leaders should account for corruption — into a conversation voters can examine for themselves. As the country approaches the local government elections, that may be the more important question: not whether a political leader delivers a convincing interview, but whether the policies presented can withstand scrutiny once the cameras are off and governing begins.
End.
Beyond the headline, into the context.
Insightful Daily 24 combines verified reporting with explanatory analysis to help readers understand the issues shaping South Africa and the world. At the bottom of our articles, you’ll also find short videos from our growing digital knowledge library — covering practical topics such as personal finance, employment rights, mental wellbeing and long-term financial planning. From understanding tax-free savings accounts and the Basic Conditions of Employment Act to recognising burnout, managing anxiety and learning about retirement annuities, the library is designed to make important, potentially life-changing information easier to understand and use.
Insightful Daily 24 — where the headline ends, insight begins.
Comments