By Tebogo Khaas
An Open Letter to Mr Johann Rupert
Dear Mr Rupert,
At the outset, allow me to express the deep sense of anxiety and emotional turmoil that accompany me as I pen this open letter to a person revered globally such as you — an unease whose reasons, I trust, will become evident as you read on.
It has been widely reported that you played a pivotal role in facilitating the recent high-level meeting between President Cyril Ramaphosa and his delegation — of which you were a member — and the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Like many of my fellow compatriots, I extend my sincere gratitude for your efforts during what can only be described as a critical juncture in our nation’s journey.
Your unwavering commitment to the country and your demonstration of patriotic duty in this regard are commendable and beyond reproach.
I was personally moved by the profound sense of attachment and emotional investment you expressed in your country when you shared with the world the story of your and your family’s enduring commitment to South Africa — illustrated, among other things, by the cottages you are building for your grandchildren at your farm in the Western Cape. Notwithstanding your immense wealth, which affords you the freedom to reside anywhere in the world, you have chosen to make South Africa your primary home — a gesture that stands in stark contrast to certain other extraordinarily wealthy individuals who only claim residency when it serves their political or commercial convenience.
Equally striking was your candid reflection on the peace of mind you enjoy at your farm, where you occasionally retire for the night without locking your doors — a powerful testament to your sense of comfort and security in that environment.
Regrettably, this level of freedom, safety, and tranquillity remains elusive for the overwhelming majority of your compatriots, particularly those living in black townships including the gang-afflicted communities of the Cape Flats on the outskirts of Cape Town, where fear and insecurity are a part of daily life.
However well-intentioned your remarks during the Oval Office tête-à-tête may have been, they nonetheless raised serious concerns. To many, elements of your commentary appeared, at best, condescendingly paternalistic — and, at worst, bordering on contemptuous.
Firstly, and seemingly without due regard for the existing legal and regulatory framework governing the telecommunications sector — including the imperative of economic transformation — you appeared to unilaterally endorse Mr Elon Musk’s Starlink as a prospective entrant into the South African market. This endorsement notably omitted any reference to the statutory role of the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (ICASA), which is the sole body mandated under law to oversee and adjudicate the requisite licensing processes applicable to all prospective operators in the sector.
You may not be aware that, in recent months, Starlink withdrew — at the eleventh hour — from an ICASA-led consultative process to which it had initially committed. The purpose of this process was to gather public input on the appropriate regulatory framework for licensing low-earth orbit satellite services such as Starlink’s in the South African market. This abrupt withdrawal has raised legitimate concerns and suspicions that Starlink may feel emboldened, perhaps in the belief that it can rely on influential business figures such as yourself to bypass — or even undermine — the rigorous regulatory procedures to which all other market participants are subject.
It is worth reminding you that South Africa is a constitutional democracy, firmly governed by the rule of law. This foundational principle appears to have been overlooked during your engagement in the presence of President Trump — a figure who has, on numerous occasions, demonstrated a proclivity for issuing executive orders with scant regard for their legal soundness or constitutional legitimacy.
Secondly, in “anointing” and advocating for the adoption of the Starlink system, you appeared to implicitly overstate its capabilities, while simultaneously casting doubt on the capacity of established local telecommunications providers, including Telkom, MTN, Vodacom, and Cell C, to deliver the network coverage necessary to support the SA Police Service’s anti-crime efforts in the Cape Flats. This assertion was made without presenting any substantive evidence to support the claim that these providers lack adequate coverage in the area. To the discerning listener, your remarks may have conveyed the impression that these telecommunications giants offer substandard services, despite the absence of any known technical constraints that would prevent them from operating effectively in regions such as the Cape Flats.
Lastly — and by no means of lesser importance — your paternalistic and condescending conduct toward our Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, Mr Ronald Lamola, was both troubling and regrettable. Referring to him dismissively as “this one” while making a point in response to an invitation to do so by Trump — whether or not intended to demean — inevitably reinforces long-standing perceptions that elements within big business, often referred to colloquially as “white monopoly capital”, harbour little respect for our democratically elected officials and the institutions they represent.
To use such a high-profile diplomatic occasion to belittle our foremost ambassador and a senior Cabinet member was not only deeply inappropriate, but also disturbingly Reminiscent of our apartheid past — a time when Black South Africans were treated as second-class citizens, denied basic dignity and respect.
Your conduct was painfully reminiscent of an incident I witnessed in the late 1990s while working for a major financial services firm. On one occasion, within earshot and seemingly by design, the chief executive made certain I could hear him reprimanding the then Minister of Finance over the phone — the minister having purportedly been uncooperative in facilitating the company’s coveted offshore primary listing. Needless to say, I found the display deeply inappropriate, and I made my disapproval clear to the chief executive once he had concluded his tirade.
Hardly had the South African delegation returned from its Washington, D.C. engagement when a wave of reactions — largely positive — began to surge across traditional media and social platforms. I was amongst the first who took the opportunity to publicly commend Team South Africa’s efforts on Wednesday (Trump fails in bid to blindside Team SA as Starlink takes centre stage, Daily Maverick).
While the importance and relative success of the mission are beyond dispute, it is equally important to scrutinise the controversy surrounding the manner in which the Starlink matter was handled. For, even before the theatrics of the Oval Office’s made-for-television moment unfolded, rumours began circulating about concessions allegedly extended by the South African delegation to Mr Musk — a close ally of President Trump and the tech oligarch behind Starlink. Musk’s unusually restrained demeanour during the Oval Office proceedings only fuelled speculation, with many interpreting his silence as tacit satisfaction with the purported Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) concessions made in his favour.
It would be completely preposterous for any rational observer to accept Mr Musk’s erroneous claim that our government has refused to grant his company a licence solely because he is not Black. In fact, the opposite is true. The South African government has consistently articulated its commitment to leveraging technology as a means of bridging the digital divide. It has long recognised that the diffusion of digital technology is vital to enhancing service delivery, particularly in underserved and remote communities where conventional telecommunications infrastructure remains inadequate.
It comes as no surprise that your endorsement of Starlink has sparked a public outcry — one that is now unfolding across our legislative institutions, judicial forums and the ever-cantankerous public square of social media. In response, the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Communications has summoned Minister of Communications, Mr Solly Malatsi, to account for his actions and, in particular, to explain his apparent attempt to confer a semblance of legal legitimacy upon your “anointment” of Starlink.
Public Interest SA, the organisation I am proud to lead, has consistently worked to advance digital and economic inclusion. Furthermore, we have assiduously sought to counter the misinformation propagated by Mr Musk and individuals affiliated with his xAI-owned social media platform, X (formerly Twitter). The asymmetric campaign undermining our government’s efforts to address the country’s dire socioeconomic challenges and to advance e-government is already formidable. These efforts are further hampered by attempts to bypass or disregard the rule of law — a foundational pillar of our constitutional democracy.
As I conclude, allow me to emphasise the importance of distinguishing the signal from the noise. Unlike Mr Musk, EFF leader Mr Julius Malema, and President Trump — whose motives are often entangled with personal or political interests — your intentions, it must be acknowledged, appear firmly rooted in a commitment to the public good and the national interest.
Your efforts, as evidenced by your role in facilitating this high-level engagement, reflect a sincere attempt to help reset and strengthen the diplomatic relationship between our nation and the United States of America.
You continue to inspire many, including my own modest efforts through Public Interest SA, as I endeavour — in my small way — to contribute to the advancement and deepening of our democracy.
I remain, as ever,
Respectfully yours,
Tebogo Khaas
By Tebogo Khaas is the founder and chairperson of Public Interest SA.
INSIDE POLITICS