“I WON’T APOLOGISE!” ANDILE MNGXITAMA DEFENDS HIS REMARKS THAT WHITE PEOPLE ARE BEING KILLED SO THAT LAND CAN BE TAKEN BACK, SPARKING ANGER AFTER THE BRUTAL ATTACK ON FARMER DONOVAN MARX!
MK Party MP Andile Mngxitama has refused to apologise following widespread criticism of his controversial comments about the brutal attack on North West farmer Donovan Marx.
Mngxitama attracted intense backlash after making remarks linking violence against white farmers to the struggle over land ownership. His comments were interpreted as suggesting that white people were being killed as part of efforts to reclaim land.
Following the public outrage, Mngxitama defended his position and maintained that his remarks had been taken out of context. He argued that he was raising the issue of land dispossession and the treatment of black farmworkers, whose experiences he believes receive insufficient attention.
He also defended his controversial reference to Marx’s injuries, arguing that it was intended to make a broader political point about landowners listening to the grievances of farmworkers.
However, his explanation has not stopped criticism. Many South Africans believe that using a victim’s horrific injuries to make a political argument is deeply insensitive, particularly while the victim and his family are dealing with the consequences of a violent crime.
Donovan Marx, 50, was attacked at a farm near Ventersdorp on 28 October 2026. He was reportedly shot and assaulted, and his ears were cut off during the attack. Several suspects have since appeared in court in connection with the case.
The South African Human Rights Commission has also received complaints about Mngxitama’s remarks and is assessing the matter. No final finding has been announced.
The incident has reignited debate about farm attacks, land reform, political responsibility and whether public representatives should be held accountable for comments made about victims of violent crime.
Do you believe Mngxitama should apologise, or should he be allowed to defend his remarks as political commentary?