Afriforum’s recent trip to the United States has triggered heated public debate in South Africa, with many government officials and political parties questioning the motives behind the group’s engagements with influential policymakers in Washington, DC.
The core of Afriforum’s argument revolves around what it perceives as ongoing human rights infringements aimed at Afrikaners—especially with the passing of the Expropriation Act and the Basic Education Laws Amendment Act (BELA).
The group claims that its lobbying efforts are part of a legitimate quest to protect private property rights, language rights, and the broader interests of a community that historically played a dominant role in South African affairs.
Meanwhile, the Hawks’ announcement that four high treason dockets have been opened against Afriforum underscores the level of tension surrounding these activities.
Below is an exploration of why Afriforum believes its presence in the United States is crucial, how its lobbying may shape South Africa’s diplomatic and economic relationships, and whether the charges against them could be legally or politically consequential.
Afriforum in the US lobbying for minority interests
Afriforum’s advocacy in the United States is rooted in its longstanding mission to represent the interests of Afrikaners, whom the organisation argues face systematic marginalisation in South Africa.
The recent legislation signed by President Cyril Ramaphosa, most notably the Expropriation Act—which allows for property expropriation under certain circumstances with nil compensation—and the BELA Act, which effectively curtails certain linguistic and cultural protections in schools, have fuelled Afriforum’s claim that the rights of Afrikaans-speaking communities are under threat.
Led by CEO Kallie Kriel and other senior figures, the group embarked on discussions with various US officials, including members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, hoping to garner pressure on the South African government to revise or halt policies they view as detrimental.
Their hope is that the US government, which wields significant economic leverage through initiatives like the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), will intervene or caution South Africa against pursuing legislation that appears to infringe on minority rights or violate international commercial standards.
AfriForum’s public statements suggest that they believe the South African government is either unwilling or unable to listen to their concerns, leaving the group no choice but to seek external support.
Many of their arguments focus on the potential economic fallout—both for South Africa and international partners—if land expropriation or other contentious policies scare off foreign investors.
They also maintain that farm murders and anti-Afrikaner rhetoric remain a significant concern, pointing to chants like “Kill the Boer” and accusing officials of failing to condemn such language.
In their eyes, reaching out to a major economic player like the United States is not only appropriate but necessary.
However, critics argue that by engaging with foreign powers, Afriforum is undermining domestic processes and painting an unbalanced picture of South Africa abroad.
They accuse the group of selectively highlighting worst-case scenarios—such as the spectre of mass land grabs—to elicit sympathy and gain political leverage.
Various government figures and political parties feel that Afriforum’s conduct may harm the country’s international reputation, hamper diplomatic ties, and undercut the hard-won sovereignty of South Africa’s legal and parliamentary frameworks.
Why Afriforum is fighting a losing battle
While Afriforum’s campaign has certainly caught the attention of US lawmakers, whether it will translate into tangible results is less certain. For one, the South African government has so far dismissed the group’s efforts as sensationalist.
Officials have reiterated that the Expropriation Act’s provisions for nil compensation apply only in narrowly defined instances and argue that they are primarily aimed at addressing historical land injustices.
The BELA Act, meanwhile, is framed by government representatives as an effort to modernise education laws and promote broader inclusivity for all languages—policies that are not without controversies, but that nonetheless have been legislated through constitutional processes.
On the global stage, Afriforum faces another uphill battle. While some US politicians might be open to hearing out concerns regarding property rights, the impetus for America to take punitive action against South Africa remains uncertain.
Diplomatically, Washington has multiple interests in the broader southern African region, including security cooperation, trade partnerships, and a range of other geopolitical considerations that go beyond cultural and linguistic tensions within one segment of South Africa’s population.
Thus, even if certain voices in the US call for sanctions or a review of South Africa’s participation in AGOA, it is far from guaranteed that these measures would successfully pass through all legislative hurdles.
In effect, although Afriforum’s public relations drive has raised awareness around the land expropriation debate, the group is also confronting the reality that the US—irrespective of whether Republicans or Democrats hold sway—tends to act primarily in alignment with its own strategic interests.
If Washington determines that alienating South Africa could do more harm than good in a volatile global context, Afriforum’s cause might not yield sweeping support.
Equally, turning AGOA into a bargaining chip could backfire politically within the United States, where there may be concerns about harming the very communities Afriforum claims to be defending if widespread economic turmoil in South Africa ensues.
Do their actions constitute treason?
The question of high treason charges levied against Afriforum adds a dramatic herring to the narrative.
Four dockets have reportedly been opened against the organisation, centring on allegations that Afriforum deliberately spread “misleading information” abroad to undermine the South African state.
Treason is a severe crime under South African law, typically involving explicit attempts to overthrow or destabilise the government. Afriforum’s CEO, Kallie Kriel, has vehemently denied these allegations, dismissing them as baseless and politically motivated.
Crucially, legal experts point out that criticisms of government policy—even on international soil—do not automatically translate to an act of treason. For a successful prosecution, the state would need to prove that Afriforum’s advocacy in Washington constituted a deliberate plot against South Africa’s sovereignty.
Merely urging foreign powers to apply pressure on Pretoria, or highlighting perceived human rights violations, is unlikely to meet that standard unless there is clear evidence of subversive or violent intent. So far, neither the Hawks nor the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has presented proof that would substantiate these claims in court, and Trump’s recent aggressive halt of USAID funding that affects South Africa is not a targeted attack at Ramaphosa’s administration at the instruction of Afriforum or one of the group’s biggest backers — Elon Musk.
At least, this is according to a widely polarising opinion recently proliferated by a former US State Department official, Mike Benz, in a Joe Rogan podcast episode.
Still, the accusations are symbolic of a broader sentiment at home. Many in the ruling party and allied organisations believe that by taking domestic disputes to foreign capital, Afriforum is effectively undermining South Africa’s constitutional processes and diplomatic standing.
It underscores an ever-widening schism: the government sees Afriforum’s strategy as sabotage, whereas Afriforum views it as a last resort when legitimate appeals are ignored.
Whether the charges hold or not, the group’s relationship with state entities is likely to deteriorate further.
A possible outcome could be a lengthy legal tussle in which Afriforum presents its case as a constitutional fight for civil liberties, while the government argues that the group is destabilising South Africa for its own gain.
Regardless of the specifics, the long-term strategic objective for Afriforum seems clear: maintain international visibility for the Afrikaner cause, secure external pressure against laws it deems unfair, and project itself as a guardian of a community’s rights against what it sees as oppressive state policies.
For South Africa, this sets a troubling precedent. The sight of local organisations lobbying foreign powers to hold a democratically elected government accountable is a stark indication of a climate in which mutual trust between civil society groups and the state has eroded.
With the Expropriation Act and BELA Act remaining contentious, it is evident that the schism over land reform, cultural rights, and minority protections will continue to widen. Afriforum’s trip to the US and the subsequent furore over high treason allegations might be just the beginning of a prolonged battle, both in courtrooms and in the arena of international diplomacy.
