The Democratic Alliance is astounded at the necessity of Defence Minister Angie Motshekga, to establish a Board of Inquiry into the handling of SANDF Commander-in-Chief President Cyril Ramaphosa’s instruction relating to the controversial Exercise Will for Peace 2026. It appears, based on the statement from the minister, that a presidential instruction was either defied or not implemented.
Minister Motshekga must appear before the Portfolio Committee on Defence without delay and account for what the President ordered, how that instruction was handled, how it aligned – or conflicted, with prior public statements by senior SANDF leadership, who took the relevant decisions, and why the order was not acted on immediately.
The establishment of a Board of Inquiry does not place Parliament in a holding pattern. Defence BOIs are well known for being slow, inward-looking processes that can take years to conclude, often behind closed doors. South Africans cannot be asked to wait indefinitely while questions of authority, discipline, and responsibility remain unanswered. Parliamentary oversight exists to ensure accountability in real time.
These concerns are not theoretical. Credible media reports indicate that the President directed that Iranian warships be removed from the exercise, yet those vessels appeared to remain involved. The Board must urgently establish whether the Commander-in-Chief’s instruction was ignored, diluted, or misrepresented, and whether senior officials acted outside lawful authority, and drastic concomitant action must follow.
This controversy did not arise in isolation. The Chief of the SANDF, Rudzani Maphwanya, made public remarks in Tehran that spoke positively about strengthening military cooperation with Iran.
A consequence of these remarks was the creation of a public signal of deepening defence engagement at a time when Iran is diplomatically sensitive and heavily sanctioned. When reports later emerged that the President had instructed that Iranian vessels be excluded, it raised serious questions about whether prior military signaling conflicted with, or complicated, the execution of a presidential directive.
At the heart of this matter is civilian control over the military. South Africa’s constitutional order is clear: the SANDF is subject to civilian authority, and the President is the Commander-in-Chief. If a direct instruction from the President was defied or not implemented promptly, or if earlier public positioning by senior military leadership created ambiguity or resistance, it points to a dangerous breakdown in command discipline and accountability. The SANDF should not be defying the government of the day, nor should it be allowed to run a parallel foreign policy.
The DA will hold the ANC and the Minister to account on transparency, constitutional accountability, and the supremacy of civilian authority over the military.