JOHANNESBURG – South Africa has firmly rejected a viral claim by Elon Musk that the country now has “more anti-White laws than apartheid had anti-Black laws,” specifically pushing back against his apparent reference to Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BEE) or BEE policies.
Government officials, legal experts and civil society leaders have described the claim as historically false, constitutionally misleading and dangerous in the current geopolitical climate.
The remark, posted by Musk on X (formerly Twitter) as shown below, spread rapidly across international audiences, drawing condemnation from South African leaders who stressed that BEE laws are not punitive or exclusionary, but constitutionally sanctioned measures aimed at correcting severe economic distortions created by apartheid. Critics argue that conflating BEE with apartheid-era legislation falsely equates policies designed for redress and inclusion with a system built on racial domination, dispossession and state violence.
What is BEE?
Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) is a South African constitutional policy framework designed to address apartheid-era economic exclusion by promoting inclusive ownership, skills development and participation — without removing anyone’s citizenship or fundamental rights. The Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act 53 of 2003 and its amendments can be read here.
Why Musk’s apartheid comparison is being rejected
Legal historians are unequivocal: apartheid was not a collection of policies, but a total system of racial domination enforced through law and violence.
The Architecture of Apartheid: A User’s Breakdown
The specific legal framework of apartheid is key to this debate. In direct response to Musk, one user provided this stark enumeration of its core legislation:
This legal architecture created the reality where Black South Africans were stripped of citizenship, land ownership, freedom of movement, political participation and access to quality education. Laws such as the Population Registration Act, Group Areas Act, Pass Laws, Bantu Education Act and Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act regulated every aspect of life based on race.
Millions were forcibly removed from their homes. Hundreds of thousands were arrested annually under pass laws. Interracial relationships were criminalised. Political opposition was crushed through detention without trial, exile and killings.
Legal scholars stress that apartheid was upheld through state violence, mass dispossession and racial supremacy — a reality fundamentally different from South Africa’s modern legal framework.
As one observer bluntly puts it in response to Musk’s post: “Apartheid was a violent legal system that stripped Black South Africans of citizenship, land, movement, education, and skilled work… It was enforced through mass violence, imprisonment, torture, exile, and killing.”
Post-apartheid laws focus on redress, not repression
By contrast, South Africa’s post-1994 Constitution explicitly commits the state to “heal the divisions of the past” and advance equality, dignity and freedom for all citizens.
Policies often mischaracterised as “anti-White laws” — including BEE, the Employment Equity Act and land reform programmes — are designed to address entrenched inequalities created by colonialism and apartheid.
These laws do not remove citizenship, restrict movement, ban political participation or confiscate property without due process. They operate within a constitutional system that prohibits unfair discrimination against any group, including white South Africans.
The need for redress remains stark. A 2017 government land audit revealed that while Black South Africans make up about 80% of the population, they legally own roughly 4% of agricultural land. White South Africans, around 8% of the population, own approximately 72%.
Kenyan lawyer Miguna Miguna (X post), responding to Musk, framed the issue starkly: “Apartheid laws justified the theft of African property, land, minerals and rare earths by white people. Give us the list of anti-white laws and which rights they have denied white people… Get used to Africans trying to live like all other peoples.”
Government and expert backlash
Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya (X post) condemned the post as deeply offensive, saying, “Only an unhinged, unrepentant racist will not understand how deeply offensive such words are to people who still bear the scars of apartheid and everyday work to dismantle the mess left by colonialism and apartheid that benefited your ilk.”
Former Public Protector and constitutional law professor Thuli Madonsela challenged Musk directly, stating, “Why do you spread these lies yes Sir. Surely you know the truth! Your own LLM / AI accepts that without reparative justice South Africa can never be a society of equals nor can it fulfil its economic and social potentials.”
Civil society responses echoed this sentiment. One widely shared post stated: “The new laws aren’t anti-white. They are laws designed to correct demonic apartheid injustices. It’s called justice.”
Dr. John Njenga Karugia added a historical lesson: “White South Africans stole and owned 92% of land during apartheid… Redressing racist apartheid policies is not anti-white. It is the correct thing to do… Elon Musk and White South Africans who think like him can cry me a river. Worst thing is, they know the truth, but they refuse to be set free by the truth.” (X Post)
The Starlink context and regulatory tensions
Analysts have also pointed to the broader context surrounding Musk’s remarks, particularly ongoing regulatory challenges facing his satellite internet company, Starlink.
As previously reported by NOWinSA, Starlink has struggled to secure an operating licence in South Africa due to non-compliance with local ownership and transformation requirements — not because of racial discrimination
👉 Misinformation Costs Elon Musk: False Claims on Starlink’s South Africa License Denial
The controversy intensified after Communications Minister Solly Malatsi faced criticism for appearing open to regulatory concessions for Starlink, prompting concerns about undermining transformation laws
👉 Solly Malatsi Set to Roll Back Years of B-BBEE Transformation to Accommodate Starlink
Cultural commentator Darren Campher (X post) took a swipe at the Minister: “This is who you want to bend the rules for? @SollyMalatsi.”
ANC MP Khusela Diko warned against special treatment for foreign tech giants: “Starlink has made public pronouncements… that they would connect 5000 schools. This doesn’t move the needle an inch when compared to the more than 22 000 schools our mobile network operators who ALREADY comply with our transformative laws have committed to… Starlink must not undermine our legislation.”
Some online commentators speculated on Musk’s motives. One user stated: “He’s a business man. He’s trying to beat the system and get to register his company without complying with the BEE rule. So, he must use something to get what he wanted. Hence all these propaganda.”
Diplomatic strain and US–South Africa tensions
Musk’s comments land amid escalating diplomatic tensions between Pretoria and Washington. The Trump administration previously expelled South Africa’s ambassador, Ebrahim Rasool, and has imposed tariffs that have hit South African exports hard.
👉 Trump Tariffs Hit South Africa Hard — Ramaphosa Scrambles to Contain Fallout
Critics warn that high-profile misinformation — especially when echoed by influential business figures — risks shaping foreign policy decisions based on false premises and reviving debunked narratives.
RELATED: White-victimhood in question as throngs of Afrikaners rally in Pretoria in support of Trump
A broader battle over truth and sovereignty
South Africa’s unified response underscores a deeper concern: the growing power of global tech figures to shape political narratives far beyond their borders.
Officials and experts stress that defending historical truth is not about silencing debate, but about resisting the rewriting of apartheid’s legacy in ways that undermine constitutional democracy and national sovereignty.
As South Africa balances transformation, foreign investment and shifting global alliances, leaders insist one line remains non-negotiable: apartheid’s crimes cannot be relativised, and redress cannot be misrepresented as oppression.
A broader battle over truth and sovereignty
South Africa’s unified response to Musk’s claim underscores a deeper concern: the growing power of global tech figures to shape political narratives far beyond their borders.
Officials and experts stress that defending historical truth is not about silencing debate, but about resisting the rewriting of apartheid’s legacy in ways that undermine constitutional democracy and national sovereignty.
As South Africa balances transformation, foreign investment and shifting global alliances, leaders insist one line remains non-negotiable: apartheid’s crimes cannot be relativised, and redress cannot be misrepresented as oppression.
ALSO READ:
👉🏾 Elon Musk vs Julius Malema: Why the West Fears Malema
👉🏾 Data vs Fiction: Debunking the White Genocide Myth Used in Trump G20 US Boycott
*This article forms part of NOWinSA’s commitment to factual reporting under its banner: Stories Shaping South Africa Today.
