What triggered the feud?
During a heated session of Parliament's Ad Hoc Committee on the alleged interference in police affairs, the EFF’s fiery head, Julius Malema, lashed out at the panel for not compelling Lieutenant‑General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, the KwaZulu‑Natal Police Commissioner, to appear as a witness. Malema accused the committee of being "toothless" and "juniorised," insisting that without Mkhwanazi’s testimony the inquiry could not reach any meaningful conclusions.
His outburst came after the committee released a progress report on the upcoming hearings. Malema accused a handful of MPs – some of whom had originally opposed the committee’s formation – of pretending to care now that the investigation was gaining momentum. He dismissed the parallel commission of inquiry as "not binding" and stressed that the parliamentary body possessed its own investigatory powers.
The controversy deepened when social media personality Ntsiki Mazwai took to her platforms to label Malema’s remarks as a "damning assessment" of the EFF leader’s leadership style. Mazwai argued that Malema’s sudden aggression signalled a shift in tone that could alienate the party’s base and erode its credibility.
How South Africans reacted online and on the ground
The internet lit up with polarized commentary. Some users echoed Mazwai’s criticism, suggesting that Malema’s approach was driving the EFF toward irrelevance. One commentator, @Obelisk_lira, wrote, "This is the end of EFF. Its followers are just too brainwashed to admit it." Others, however, rallied behind the party chief, noting that critics often overlook the EFF’s broader struggle against perceived state capture.
A different voice, @ourpreacher, asked for clarification, wondering whether Malema had simply changed his stance on the Mkhwanazi issue. Meanwhile, @Nash6415Nash defended Malema, pointing out that "people who never intend to support CIC or EFF are always disappointed by him, whereas supporters are not." A more nuanced take came from @ShakuJohannes, who cautioned that "he must learn to keep quiet; he's the reason EFF is not making it," suggesting that sometimes silence is more strategic than confrontation.
Even among the critics, there were calls for restraint. @MpunziTelboga advised, "There are two sides to the story; waiting could be helpful," urging the public to reserve judgment until more evidence emerged.
Beyond Twitter, reports surfaced that groups of South African men organized rallies in defence of Lieutenant‑General Mkhwanazi. These gatherings, described by local observers as "spontaneous" and “patriotic,” highlighted the deep personal loyalty many citizens feel toward the police hierarchy, especially in a province plagued by high crime rates.
The episode underscores how quickly parliamentary debates can spill over into the streets and into the feeds of millions. It also illustrates the growing influence of social media personalities like Mazwai, whose commentary can shape public perception of political leaders in real time.
For the EFF, the backlash poses a strategic dilemma: maintain a confrontational style that energises its core supporters, or temper rhetoric to avoid alienating undecided voters. Malema’s insistence on the committee’s authority could be seen as a genuine push for accountability, yet the abrasive delivery has already sparked doubts about his leadership.
Analysts note that the controversy arrives at a critical juncture for South Africa’s political landscape. With upcoming elections and a fragile coalition government, any perception of internal discord within a major opposition party could shift voter sentiment. The debate also raises questions about the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight mechanisms when key figures like Mkhwanazi remain out of reach.
