John Steenhuisen, leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), has issued a stern warning to President Cyril Ramaphosa over the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill. Steenhuisen contends that by signing the bill into law, Ramaphosa would violate the joint Statement of Intent, which underpins South Africa’s Government of National Unity (GNU).

The Vryheidsfront Plus has also issued criticism, but has stopped short of mentioning any potential threat to the integrity of the coalition agreement:

"The Freedom Front Plus is using its position in the Government of National Unity (GNU) to apply the necessary pressure to convince the president to refer the ill-considered bill back to Parliament for the required amendments and improvements."

Action SA has threatened to sue the government, as has AfriForum, over the Bill.

Meanwhile, foreign-funded NGOs have aggressively backed the bill. Section 27, which is funded by the EU, the British Commonwealth, Discovery Health, the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust, and the Ford Foundation (the latter being known for its role in laundering CIA foreign-influence projects), has made pressuring the President into signing the bill its main website feature.

The BELA Bill is set for presidential approval on Friday, and seeks eliminate parents oversight in schools, among other changes. It passed through the National Assembly on May 17 but has sparked significant public opposition, primarily over concerns that it transfers decision-making authority from parents to the state.

According to AfriForum, as well as proponents of the bill, such as the fociferously anti-white Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi, the main purpose of the bill is to empower the removal of Afrikaans as a medium of instruction. Critics also point out that it will make homeschooling virtually impossible.

AfriForum has voiced firm opposition to the proposed reforms in the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) Bill. The organisation argues that while provincial heads of education will have the final say on language and admissions policies, consultations with school governing bodies are largely symbolic. AfriForum accuses the ANC of using these discussions as a form of "window dressing" to mask its ideological agenda, often pressuring Afrikaans-medium schools to adopt dual-language instruction.

Even when consultations occur in good faith, AfriForum points out that there is no mechanism to resolve disputes. In past cases, schools were forced to fund legal battles out of parents' pockets, while the government used taxpayer funds against them. Notably, AfriForum claims that Afrikaans schools are regularly pressured to accommodate English-speaking learners, yet no similar demands are placed on English-medium schools.

AfriForum also criticises the ANC for pushing misleading narratives about schools allegedly using language policies for exclusionary or racist purposes, without providing any evidence. They argue that existing laws already address discriminatory practices, rendering new legislation unnecessary.

Despite widespread objections, the ANC has yet to amend the bill to address concerns, including its impact on home schooling. Resistance remains particularly strong in the Western Cape, where education experts are reportedly unimpressed by the bill’s revisions.

Steenhuisen argues that during GNU negotiations, the DA made clear that the bill, in its current form, is unconstitutional. He cites potential infringements on the right to mother-tongue education as a key issue. The DA is calling for Ramaphosa to send the bill back to Parliament for modest amendments to ensure its constitutionality.

Despite these objections, Steenhuisen claims that Ramaphosa appears determined to push ahead without addressing the DA's concerns. He has requested an urgent meeting with the president to present the proposed amendments and reiterate the importance of adhering to the terms of the GNU agreement.

Failure to heed these objections, Steenhuisen warns, would jeopardize the future of the GNU and erode the trust on which it is built.

‍