By Priya Ranchod
Just 30 minutes after President Cyril Ramaphosa addressed the nation on the country's fight against gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) on Tuesday, 29 September 2026, a series of questions were submitted to the Presidency seeking clarity on statements made during the address.
In his speech, the President condemned the continued scourge of GBVF, described violence against women as a national crisis, and addressed public concern over the murders of women in and around Ekurhuleni. While acknowledging that investigators had not established that the killings were committed by a single perpetrator, he said government was treating the matter with utmost urgency and had assembled multidisciplinary teams to support ongoing investigations.
The President also referred to research showing that a significant proportion of women murdered in South Africa are killed by intimate partners, highlighting the broader GBVF crisis facing the country.
Following the address, questions were sent to Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya seeking clarity on how the Ekurhuleni murders had been linked to GBVF while investigations remained incomplete.
Among the questions submitted were:
1. Given the President's acknowledgment that police have not found evidence that the 11 killings in Ekurhuleni were committed by a single perpetrator, on what basis has the matter been presented as a manifestation of the GBVF crisis rather than a series of unrelated murder investigations?
2. Has any evidence emerged indicating that the women killed in Ekurhuleni were targeted specifically because of their gender, and if not, why has the Presidency linked these murders directly to GBVF?
3. Can the Presidency clarify whether any of the Ekurhuleni victims were killed by intimate partners, family members or persons known to them, as is commonly associated with GBVF cases?
4. What distinction does government make between gender-based violence and general violent crime where the victims happen to be women?
5. In light of the President's statement that all possibilities remain under investigation, does the government accept that it may be premature to classify the Ekurhuleni murders collectively as GBVF-related incidents?
6. How many of the 11 Ekurhuleni killings have been formally recorded by the SAPS as GBVF-related cases, and what objective criteria were applied in making that determination?
7. Could linking unproven serial murder allegations to GBVF risk undermining public understanding of the primary drivers of gender-based violence identified in the President's speech, namely intimate partner and domestic violence?
8. The President cited research indicating that more than 60% of women murdered were killed by intimate partners. How many of the Ekurhuleni victims fall within this category, and how many cases remain unrelated to intimate-partner violence?
9. What evidence does the Presidency have that the Ekurhuleni killings are connected to the wider national GBVF crisis rather than constituting a separate criminal phenomenon requiring a different policy response?
10. Will the Presidency commit to releasing the findings of the multidisciplinary investigation once completed, including whether each murder has been classified as GBVF-related, serial homicide, organised crime, or another form of violent crime?
11. Does the Presidency believe that public statements linking the Ekurhuleni murders to GBVF before the conclusion of investigations could prejudice public perception of the cases or create assumptions unsupported by evidence?
12. Given that arrests have already been made in several of the murders involving different suspects, what evidence supports treating the Ekurhuleni killings as a single GBVF-related crisis rather than separate criminal acts committed by unrelated perpetrators?
The questions were accompanied by a request for a response by midday the following day (30 September 2026).
When no acknowledgement was received, follow-up messages were sent on 30 September and again on 1 October.
After repeated requests for comment, Magwenya eventually responded on Thursday (1 October) afternoon, stating: "I have chosen not to comment. You are free to write the Presidency declined to comment."
When questioned about the lack of engagement and whether the Presidency intended to work constructively with the publication in future, he reiterated his position, replying: "I've said I'm not commenting on your questions. That's it in relation to the GBV matter."
The response means that several questions arising directly from the President's national address remain unanswered. In particular, there has been no explanation from the Presidency regarding the evidentiary basis for linking the Ekurhuleni murders to the country's GBVF crisis, nor clarification on whether any of the cases have been formally classified as gender-based violence.
For now, the questions raised in the wake of the President's address remain outstanding, with the Presidency spokesperson choosing not to provide further comment.
Featured Advertiser: High Resolution Ad at this link
