PRESS RELEASE
2 March 2026
PARLIAMENTARY OVERREACH
Oversight
or
political hooliganism?
by Gerhard Papenfus
A recent incident, involving members of Parliament, and in particular the Portfolio Committee on Employment and Labour, illustrated an attitude towards business that is deeply concerning for all business owners in South Africa.
The lack of appreciation of the invaluable contribution of business and disrespect for the institution of business, the raw racism and shocking behaviour by certain members of Parliament, illustrated a lack of self-respect, resulting in contempt towards an employer and its employees, was glaringly demonstrated during an inspection by inspectors of the Department of Employment and Labour, accompanied by members of the Portfolio Committee on Employment and Labour (the Committee), Department of Home Affairs, Cosatu, and members of the South African Police Service (SAPS).
The incident referred to above occurred on 4 February 2026, when a group of approximately 50 unidentified individuals, which later turned out to be the abovementioned individuals, in approximately 10 SUVs, arrived unannounced and demanded entry to the private property of Normandien Farms (Pty) Ltd in the Newcastle district.
On arrival, they intimidated and overran security. When requested by security to identify themselves and to adhere to the safety protocols of the employer, the pedestrian gate was simply overrun and the vehicle gate forced open. The employer’s security staff, as a result of the threatening attitude of this unruly ‘mob’, lost control of the site.
There was no introduction, identification, or letter of appointment shown or offered. The composition of this ‘mob’ was only ratified later by viewing posts on the Department of Labour Facebook page. This is, in itself, an indictment of the bullying tactics, bolstered by SAPS, and the failure to provide identification of all those participating in the ‘inspection’ on the day. Instead, the threat, by armed police, to be arrested if the gate was not opened was the modus operandi.
Adherence to all safety procedures was refused. When security, as a result of this, refused them entrance, not only were they threatened with arrest, but the police, in civilian attire, accompanying them, carrying semi-automatic assault rifles, adopted a threatening stance. Also, notwithstanding the demands of security, the requirement to follow sanitation protocols to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease (Normandien Farms is also a commercial cattle farm), was also not adhered to.
It is important to note that the foot-and-mouth disease prevention measures, now declared a national disaster, is well signposted. All persons entering the site, employees included, must have the soles of their shoes sanitised, and all vehicles must have the wheels and wheel arches sprayed with sanitiser. The members of the Portfolio Committee somehow viewed themselves as being above such “trivialities” as occupational health and safety and national disasters.
The members of the Portfolio Committee hurled verbal abuse and racist remarks towards senior staff members of the employer. In one instance, a particular senior staff member (the mill manager) was referred to as a “white c%&#” and threatened with “we are coming for you”. In another incident, another senior staff member (the safety officer) was told that: “this one doesn’t smell good ‘Jisus’.”
Notwithstanding a full audit not being done, no proper structure or format being followed, and the investigation being held in a chaotic environment, a portion of the site was shut down, without a physical inspection of the area involved even being conducted by the Department of Labour inspectors. Unauthorised invasion of the mill was undertaken by the ‘mob’ without safety induction, personal protective equipment, or an escort as required by law.
There is no doubt that the Portfolio Committee on Labour, which participated in this rogue “inspection”, abused its authority.
The authority to monitor and enforce compliance with labour laws, lies exclusively with labour inspectors. They are granted, in terms of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act, the right of entry, to question, to investigate, and the right to issue compliance orders where contraventions have been identified. The employer has never refused access to inspectors. On the contrary, the employer has received regular visits in the normal course of business.
The responsibilities of Portfolio Committees in general are to scrutinise legislation, review departmental budgets, and ensure executive accountability in the respective departments that they oversee.
In this case, its oversight responsibility at most relates to the evaluation of the performance of the officials and employees working in the Department.
Portfolio Committee members have no right or power to participate in or interfere with an inspection, nor do they have any right to engage, berate, swear at, or instruct a private sector employer in any way. Their role, if permitted as part of oversight, is simply to monitor the performance of the inspector, nothing more.
The manner in which this inspection was conducted is indicative of the fact that this was not due to an obligation to ensure worker rights, but a political stunt aimed at attacking an employer, without any prima facie justification, in public to be seen as protecting the rights of employees.
The shameful and unlawful manner in which members of the Committee conducted themselves during an “inspection” at Normandien Farms is scandalous.
These parliamentarians have no respect for business, nor do they have the faintest appreciation for the critical role that business plays in making South Africa function. These socialists somehow believe that the taxes that generate their salaries are generated elsewhere – they won’t be able to say where. As far as they are concerned, at least in terms of what they illustrate through their behaviour, private business has no role to play. In fact, they are downright hostile towards business.
The general behaviour of these parliamentary invaders borders on hooliganism. If this had been uneducated individuals, it might have been understandable, but these are members of Parliament. These are the people who rule over us, at least, in their minds. These are the people who debate legislation that affects us all, legislation that determines our future. That is deeply concerning.
Although labour inspectors perform an important function in ensuring compliance and workplace safety, it is not incumbent on members of the Committee, nor Cosatu, nor the SAPS to enter this terrain to score cheap political points. They should rather focus on their real responsibilities, like investigating the Unemployment Insurance Fund, the Compensation Fund, and the labour centres, which are all falling apart at the seams, but then, that will not get them trending on social media.
Normandien Farms is a large employer in the rural space where employment opportunities are scarce. It is compliant with all its legal obligations. These actions by the members of Parliament, labour inspectors, Home Affairs, SAPS, and Cosatu violate law, common sense, and are indicative of the lack of understanding of their obligations to employers. Inspections at workplaces are certainly necessary, but these are subject to proper procedures and protocol, which, in this particular case, were breached in all respects.
Gerhard Papenfus is the Chief Executive of the National Employers’ Association of South Africa (NEASA).
ISSUED BY
NEASA
MEDIA CONTACT
Charis Esema Onaolapo
Media Liaison (NEASA)
083 393 4435
media@neasa.co.za