A costly political show masking deep divisions and unchecked agendas.
Key topics:
National Dialogue seen as political theatre, not real reform
Sooliman’s ideological bias undermines public trust and unity
Media, police, and state ties blur lines of power and accountability
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.
If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.
The auditorium doors will open for BNIC#2 on 10 September 2025 in Hermanus. For more information and tickets, click here.
By Joshua Schewitz
South Africa has entered the era of symbolic politics. Electricity fails. Schools decay. Institutions collapse. Yet the state answers these failures not with leadership, but with theatre. President Cyril Ramaphosa’s latest act, the “National Dialogue,” is the clearest example yet. Presented as a solution to national discord, it is nothing more than a managed performance designed to pacify the public while the ruling elite avoids responsibility.
To lead this performance, the president has appointed Dr Imtiaz Sooliman, founder of Gift of the Givers. At first glance, Sooliman appears to be a safe choice, the face of humanitarianism, respected in the press, and widely known for disaster relief. However, behind this polished image lies an agenda that contradicts everything a genuine national dialogue is supposed to represent.
A Manufactured Reputation
Sooliman’s reputation as an apolitical humanitarian has gone largely unquestioned. In reality, his public commentary reveals a consistent ideological stance. He has used his platform to repeatedly vilify Israel, characterising it as a genocidal regime, while avoiding any meaningful critique of Hamas. He routinely adopts language that erases Jewish history and nationhood, painting Zionism as a global pathology rather than a national movement. This is not balanced criticism. It is ideological hostility masquerading as compassion.
During one of the worst attacks on Jews in recent history, the 7 October massacre in Israel, Sooliman failed to condemn the violence outright. While Jewish civilians were being murdered, raped, and mutilated, he remained silent. This is a political choice, not an oversight. It reflects a worldview that reserves outrage for one group alone.
Founding a Party Built on Hate, Celebrated by Those It Condemns
Sooliman’s entry into public life did not begin with humanitarian work. He was a founding figure in the African Muslim Party, a group whose campaign materials openly condemned gay rights and told voters they would “share the sin” if they supported parties like the ANC or DP at the time. That ideology is not distant history. It was central to the AMP’s platform, which pushed for a religious sharia legal system and rejected South Africa’s secular democracy. The irony today is that some of Sooliman’s most loyal defenders come from communities he once vilified. Progressive journalists, LGBTQ+ public figures, and human rights advocates have embraced him without questioning what he stands for. This contradiction is not harmless. It is a clear example of how media spin, brand sanitising, and public amnesia allow ideology to be repackaged as compassion.
Embedded in the Media, Shielded from Scrutiny
According to a detailed June 2025 intelligence-style report, Sooliman has undertaken a highly structured campaign to embed himself inside South Africa’s media landscape. Over the past year, he has personally courted senior editors and journalists at News24, eNCA, and other major outlets. These were not media interviews. They were closed-door engagements without public statements, interviews, or press releases. These meetings were accompanied by gift-giving, studio visits, and gestures of goodwill.
From a public relations standpoint, this is classic relationship capture. From an intelligence perspective, it resembles HUMINT access development, a strategic method of gaining long-term influence over targets through emotional rapport. The result has been chilling. Media houses that maintain close ties to Sooliman have become less willing to publish criticism of his political views or affiliations. Journalists now weigh their editorial decisions against their relationships. Jewish and secular counter-narratives are filtered out or never commissioned at all. Only token “jewish” ideas are put out into the media cycle.
This outcome was not accidental. It reflects a calculated effort to influence how information is shaped, distributed, and constrained within the media environment.
