“No One Is Permanent in MKP Except Zuma”: Ndhlela’s Old Warning Return to Haunt Him After Suspension

The political fortunes of former uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party spokesperson Nhlamulo Ndhlela have taken a dramatic turn, sparking widespread discussion across South Africa’s political landscape. Ndhlela, who was recently suspended by the organization pending an internal investigation, is now facing intense public scrutiny as an old statement he made about party loyalty and organizational discipline circles back into the public eye.

During a previous interview on the digital platform SMWX, Ndhlela had confidently asserted that no position within the rapidly expanding party was secure, save for that of its leader, former President Jacob Zuma. In that interview, he warned that anyone who failed to perform or introduced outside friction would not last, famously adding that unorthodox behavior would be dealt with by spiritual forces.

The revival of these exact words has triggered a wave of irony on social media and among political commentators, given Ndhlela’s sudden removal from the party hierarchy. Before his suspension, he was one of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the MK Party, regularly appearing in high-profile media briefings and fiery political debates to articulate and shield the party’s official positions. His sharp, uncompromising communication style made him a highly visible ally of Zuma, earning him strong loyalty from supporters but deep skepticism from political opponents.

This suspension highlights a broader pattern of strict internal discipline within the MK Party. While leadership has kept the exact details of the pending investigation confidential, the decision to sidelights such a high-profile figure demonstrates an ongoing effort to consolidate authority and eliminate internal dissent. Over the past several months, the party has experienced multiple internal leadership shifts and disputes as it attempts to build solid institutional structures following its rapid electoral success. Throughout this organizational turbulence, Jacob Zuma has remained the undisputed core of the movement, with members consistently rallying around his leadership. For now, Ndhlela’s future within the party remains highly uncertain, but his resurfaced warnings serve as a striking example of the volatile nature of power and loyalty in modern politics.

A heated confrontation has erupted after Jacinta publicly called out a journalist whom she accused of spreading false information about the March and March movement.

Speaking during a tense exchange, Jacinta did not hold back as she demanded that the reporter stop publishing what she described as misleading and damaging claims about the movement. According to her, inaccurate reporting has created confusion among supporters and distorted the true purpose of the campaign.

“The public deserves facts, not fabricated stories,” Jacinta reportedly said. “If you are a journalist, report the truth and stop spreading lies about the March and March movement.”

The incident has since sparked widespread debate on social media, with supporters of the movement praising Jacinta for defending what they believe is the integrity of their cause. Others, however, argued that disagreements between activists and the media should be handled professionally and through open dialogue.

The March and March movement has recently gained attention for its growing influence and public demonstrations, attracting both support and criticism from different sections of society. As its visibility increases, scrutiny from media platforms and political observers has also intensified.

Jacinta maintained that criticism is acceptable when it is fair and factual, but insisted that deliberate misinformation could damage public trust and fuel unnecessary tensions. She urged journalists to verify information before publishing stories that could affect communities and supporters involved in the movement.

Media analysts say the clash highlights the growing tension between activists and sections of the press in an era dominated by fast-moving online narratives. Concerns over misinformation, selective reporting, and sensational headlines continue to raise questions about journalistic ethics and accountability.

Despite the controversy, members of the movement say they remain focused on their objectives and will not be distracted by what they call “negative propaganda.” Supporters have also encouraged the public to seek verified information directly from official movement representatives rather than relying solely on rumours circulating online.

The incident has once again placed the spotlight on the relationship between the media and public movements, with many calling for responsible reporting and respectful engagement from all sides.