The EFF has described Bozell’s comments on South Africa’s domestic policy as unbecoming.
The EFF is calling for the portfolio committee on international relations to urgently meet to discuss the controversial remarks made by Leo Brent Bozell, the United States (US) ambassador to South Africa.
This comes after Bozell publicly disagreed with court rulings on the legality of chanting the Kill the Boer chant; he also slammed Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment and questioned its effectiveness, adding that the US has differences with South Africa over international legal proceedings, strategic relationships, and aspects of domestic policy.
At a BizNews conference in Hermanus, Western Cape, on Tuesday, Bozell said relations between the US and South Africa could improve if several conditions are met: “Protecting rural communities from violence, condemning rhetoric that incites hatred and glorifies violence, ensuring that the expropriation policies include fair and clear compensation standards, expanding digital and critical minerals cooperation, ending mandatory surrender of ownership or control of corporate decision-making at the cost of doing business.”
Although Bozell described himself as an optimist who was excited to be in South Africa representing the Trump administration, some have seen his remarks as an extension of Donald Trump’s negative view of South Africa.
ALSO READ: SA GDP records modest growth in final quarter of 2025, thanks to household spending
Letter to parliament
Following Bozell’s remarks, in a letter to the speaker of parliament, the EFF’s MP, Nqobile Mhlongo, said International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola must explain to the oversight committee how Bozell’s credentials were approved.
“We therefore write to formally request that the portfolio committee on international relations and cooperation convene an urgent special meeting with the Department of International Relations and Cooperation to account to parliament on the circumstances under which the ambassador’s letter of credence was accepted, particularly in light of his prior record of statements relating to South Africa and its domestic affairs.
“Such a meeting is necessary to ensure that parliament exercises its oversight responsibility and to determine the appropriate diplomatic response to this matter,” said Mhlongo.
Mhlongo described Bozell’s attitude towards South Africa as unbecoming of a diplomatic representative accredited to a sovereign nation.
“His remarks reflect a continuation of a colonial posture that seeks to discipline sovereign states into submission and suggest that South Africa’s sovereignty is conditional upon obedience to the interests of the United States.
“Conduct of this nature undermines diplomatic norms and cannot be taken lightly,” said Mhlongo.
Letter to the Constitutional Court
The EFF has also written a letter to the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, requesting that she defend the integrity of the South African judiciary.
“Bozell has joined an irresponsible right-wing chorus in South Africa which has undermined judgements by the Equality Court, the Supreme Court of Appeals and the Constitutional Court, which have found and affirmed that the liberation chant Kill The Boer, Kill The Farmer constitutes free speech.
“It was these courts that affirmed that the chant should not be interpreted literally, and forms part of the tradition and history of struggle against oppression in our country,” said the party in a statement on Wednesday.
Bozell has since been requested by the South African government to explain his attack on South African domestic policies and on the judiciary. He has also since apologised for some of his remarks.
But political analyst at the University of the Free State, Theo Neethling, said he is not surprised by Bozell’s remarks.
“One can reasonably expect that an ambassador from another state – including a powerful one such as the United States – may articulate positions on certain political matters, for example, by indicating the conditions under which his or her country is prepared to cooperate with another state.
“China, for instance, makes it explicitly clear that countries seeking close cooperation with Beijing may not maintain official ties with Taiwan. However, prescriptive pronouncements on a host country’s internal political affairs are generally not regarded as acceptable within established norms of international diplomatic protocol,” said Neethling.
He said the newly appointed American ambassador will, therefore, need to tread carefully to avoid crossing the delicate line between articulating policy positions and appearing prescriptive about domestic political matters.
“At the same time, the new American ambassador has made some positive remarks by indicating that the United States seeks improved cooperation with South Africa.
“The difficulty, however, is that bilateral relations reached a low point during the leadership of Donald Trump. Personally, it is difficult to envisage particularly smooth relations between the United States and South Africa for as long as the Republican Party continues to shape Washington’s diplomatic posture.
“One can therefore expect further episodes of sporadic diplomatic friction in the coming years. This will require careful diplomatic management by the South African government to ensure that the country’s sovereignty is respected while at the same time finding ways to coexist with a critical American stance toward certain policy positions associated with the African National Congress – notably policies such as Black economic empowerment and South Africa’s strategic alignment with the Brics+ grouping,” said Neethling.
NOW READ: Bozell learns diplomacy the hard way