Request for parliamentary oversight regarding the handling of the UDM complaint to the SAHRC concerning SAFA and Coach Hugo Broos
Ms Thokozile Didiza, MP
Speaker of the National Assembly
Parliament of the Republic of South Africa
PO Box 15
Cape Town
8000
Dear Madam Speaker
Request for parliamentary oversight regarding the handling of the UDM complaint to the SAHRC concerning SAFA and Coach Hugo Broos
1. I write to bring to your attention a matter that the United Democratic Movement (UDM) has formally referred to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), and which has subsequently involved the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE). The matter raises issues that fall within Parliament’s oversight responsibilities.
2. In December 2025, the UDM lodged a complaint with the SAHRC concerning public utterances made by the Bafana Bafana coach, Mr Hugo Broos, as well as the institutional response of the South African Football Association (SAFA). The complaint concerns statements that raise allegations of racial and gender discrimination and therefore implicates constitutional rights protected under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act (PEPUDA).
3. On or about 10 or 11 December 2025, during a media engagement ahead of the 2025 Africa Cup of Nations tournament, Mr Broos made remarks which were widely interpreted as racially and sexually insensitive. The comments prompted significant public concern and raised questions about equality, dignity and representation in South African sport. On 11 December 2025, the UDM formally lodged a complaint with the SAHRC citing both Mr Broos and SAFA as respondents.
4. Subsequent to the public controversy, Mr Broos issued an apology on 15 December 2025, which the UDM accepted in good faith. However, the complaint lodged with the SAHRC was never confined to the conduct of one individual. It also raised broader concerns regarding the institutional response of SAFA and the absence of clear safeguards within sporting structures to address racism and sexism. The acceptance of an apology cannot substitute for institutional accountability where constitutional rights and systemic safeguards are concerned. For that reason, the UDM has consistently maintained that the matter requires consideration of systemic and policy reforms rather than being treated merely as an isolated incident.
5. The complaint was initially raised by UDM Councillor Yongama Zigebe and was formally processed through the Office of the Acting Secretary General (ASG) of the UDM. During engagements in January 2026, the SAHRC informed the UDM that the CGE had also received related complaints and that the two institutions would coordinate their handling of the matter and pursue an independent mediation process as contemplated in PEPUDA.
6. During that engagement and in subsequent written correspondence, the UDM requested clarity on several procedural issues, including whether a prima facie determination had been made that the conduct complained of falls within the ambit of PEPUDA, the anticipated timeline for the proposed mediation process, and the investigative steps undertaken by the SAHRC and CGE.
7. Regrettably, follow up correspondence addressed to the SAHRC and CGE has not received any response. The continued absence of even a basic procedural update or acknowledgement is deeply concerning in a matter involving alleged violations of constitutional rights by a prominent national figure and questions of institutional accountability by a national sporting body.
8. The UDM recognises that Chapter Nine institutions operate under significant resource and budgetary constraints. It is precisely because we respect their constitutional mandates and the important role they play in protecting fundamental rights that we have sought to allow the matter to proceed through the processes contemplated under PEPUDA.
9. However, continued procedural uncertainty cannot be allowed to persist indefinitely. Where a complaint of this nature remains without visible procedural advancement or communication from the responsible institutions, it raises serious concerns regarding the responsiveness of the processes intended to safeguard constitutional rights.
10. Should the situation remain unresolved, the UDM will have no option but to consider appropriate legal avenues to secure procedural clarity and advancement. Such a course would impose additional legal and financial burdens on all parties involved, including the SAHRC and CGE themselves. It is our sincere preference to avoid such an outcome and to allow the matter to be resolved within the existing constitutional framework.
11. It has been suggested in some quarters that the UDM’s complaint was misplaced, that it risked undermining team morale, or that matters of equality should not be raised in the context of national sport. The UDM rejects this characterisation. The complaint was never directed at the Bafana Bafana team or its performance. It concerns statements made in a public capacity and the institutional response to those statements. Issues of equality, dignity and non-discrimination apply across all spheres of public life, including sport. Upholding these principles strengthens the integrity of our institutions and ensures that national teams represent the values of the Constitution as well as the pride of the country.
12. In light of the procedural concerns outlined above, the UDM believes that parliamentary oversight is now both necessary and appropriate.
13. Given the nature of the issues raised, the mandates of several parliamentary committees are directly engaged, namely:
13.1. the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development, which exercises oversight over the SAHRC;
13.2. the Portfolio Committee on Sport, Arts and Culture, which exercises oversight over SAFA;
13.3. the Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities which exercises oversight over the CGE.
14. The issues raised concern, among others, the protection of equality and dignity in public life, the responsiveness and functioning of Chapter Nine institutions tasked with safeguarding constitutional rights, and the governance and accountability standards expected of national sporting bodies that represent the country internationally.
15. In the ordinary course of parliamentary oversight, the aforementioned committees may wish to satisfy themselves that the relevant constitutional institutions and entities have acted with the necessary responsiveness and procedural clarity in matters implicating equality, dignity and non-discrimination.
16. In light of the above, we respectfully request that your Office take the following steps so that Parliament may exercise its oversight responsibilities:
16.1. refer this matter to the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development for consideration of the procedural handling of the complaint by the SAHRC;
16.2. refer the matter to the Portfolio Committee on Sport, Arts and Culture for consideration of governance and accountability issues relating to the response of the SAFA; and
16.3. refer the matter to the Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities for consideration of the gender equality dimensions raised in the complaint and the role of the Commission for Gender Equality (CGE).
Given the seriousness of the issues involved and the continuing absence of procedural clarity from the SAHRC and the CGE, we urge that this matter be treated with the urgency it warrants.
17. The UDM stands ready to cooperate fully with your Office and with the relevant portfolio committees should Parliament consider it appropriate to engage further on this matter. Upon request, we would be willing to make available the correspondence exchanged with the SAHRC and the CGE, as well as any related documentation, so that the committees may be fully apprised of the procedural history of the complaint.
18. The UDM remains committed to resolving this matter through lawful and constructive processes that uphold the Constitution and protect the dignity and equality of all South Africans. We are equally committed to the preservation and strengthening of our sporting codes and to the national pride that South Africans across race and gender place in our national teams. These are not competing ideals, but complementary ones that should guide the institutions entrusted with representing the nation.
Yours sincerely
Mr NLS Kwankwa, MP
Deputy President of the United Democratic Movement
Party Leader in Parliament
Copied to:
• Mr Xola Nqola, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Justice and Constitutional Development
• Mr Joseph McGluwa, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Sport, Arts and Culture
• Ms Liezl van der Merwe, Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities
• Mr Tsietsi Shuping, Head of Department: Legal Services, Commission of Gender Equality
• Ms Zamantungwa Mbeki, Provincial Manager, South African Human Rights Commission
• Deputy Minister Bantu Holomisa, MP and UDM President
• Ms Zandile Phiri, UDM Acting Secretary General
• Ms Thandi Nontenja, MP, UDM National Treasurer and Chief Whip in the National Assembly
• Cllr Yongama Zigebe, originator of the HSRC complaint
• Ms Khazimla Ngalwa, Parliamentary Assistant to Mr Nqabayomzi Kwankwa, MP
