Nigerian journalist Chido Onumah spoke to Peoples Dispatch about the country’s new president, Bola Tinubu. He explained the controversy in Tinubu announcing an end to fuel subsidies. Chido also explained the agenda of the new president and the political climate in the country following the controversial election.
Related Articles
Related Articles

Hiding in Plain Sight: The Capture of South African ‘Independent’ Media by the U.S. State and Big Capital

Editor’s Note: The following represents the writers’ opinion.
A free and transparent media is critical for any democracy. But in every society, defending the integrity of the media requires constant vigilance. We found ourselves drawn into the work of exercising this vigilance by complete chance.
When the independent left publication New Frame closed down after four years of operations, the liberal media rushed in, in unseemly haste, to put the boot in. Perhaps the worst of the attacks was penned by Sam Sole and Micah Reddy of the investigative journalism outfit amaBhungane. They alleged, based on nothing more than salacious gossip, that there was an attempt to influence public discourse in South Africa by the Chinese state. Not a shred of evidence was provided for this conspiracy theory by Sole and Reddy in an article that was largely based on innuendo. They abused the institutional authority of amaBhungane as a trusted publication to give credence to a conspiracy theory, one that aligned closely with the
key tropes being driven by the United States in the New Cold War.
The hostility towards us in this story can only be because our new organization, the Pan-African Institute for Socialism (PAIS), aims to create a non-sectarian space on the left to reach consensus on a pragmatic minimum program to increase the prospects for the Black poor and working-class majority in South Africa, Africa and the Global South.
PAIS has never had any sort of connection to New Frame aside from a single meeting held at their offices to inquire about the process for submitting opinion pieces for consideration, something that never actually happened in the end. But, to our complete astonishment, we found PAIS, a new and entirely unfunded organization, drawn into the conspiracy theories recycled by Sole and Reddy. This quite bizarre experience led us to wonder who funded amaBhungane, and what the drivers were for such vehemence by publications that claim to be fair, even-handed, and balanced. Those questions soon led us to an intricate web of relationships that are clearly designed to hide the influence of powerful funders and networks.
What is the real project of these U.S.-led imperialists and their surrogates in South Africa? A common thread has been the use of proxies to stymie the liberation of the majority of South Africans, particularly the Black working class and rural poor. First was Inkatha.1 Then came the DA. Lately, it is a hodge-podge of xenophobic opportunists. In addition, there are organizations that pose as being ‘Left’ and the so-called independent media. They all have one thing in common. They have an agenda to drive the ANC vote below 50 percent, in towns, cities, provinces and ultimately nationally.2
While PAIS may irritate them because we shine a spotlight on these reactionaries, their real target is the liberation movement. They wish to stymie the realization of the National Democratic Revolution, the as-yet unrealized goal of the struggle.

We have been stunned by the extent of the capture of much South African media by the U.S. state and how most of it is hiding in plain sight. The first article to come out of our ongoing research project, “Manufacturing consent: How the United States has penetrated South African media”3 noted a few key points, including the following:
- The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was created in 1983 during the Reagan era to conduct operations and functions previously carried out by the CIA.4 It supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Contras in Nicaragua and has been involved in many U.S.-backed coups.5 It now has vast tentacles across Africa.6
- The NED funds the Mail & Guardian’s (M&G) weekly publication The Continent7 via its own non-profit arm, Adamela Trust, and international organisations like the International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM),8 and the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA),9 all of which are linked to key people and organisations in the South Africa media. The editor-in-chief of the Continent is Simon Allison, former Africa editor of M&G, Africa correspondent of Daily Maverick, and a former consultant with Open Society Foundation (OSF)-funded Institute for Security Studies.10 11 It is noteworthy that the NED has continued its program through Republican and Democratic administrations, from Reagan through to Biden, and was headed by Carl Gershman from its inception until 2021. Its agenda has not changed.
3. The OSF and Luminate, another major foundation, are official U.S. government partners that often work closely with the NED and other parts of the U.S. state, strategically taking on and funding projects that the U.S. state cannot or does not wish to directly undertake.12 Among the many examples of direct collaboration is that the NED and the OSF jointly founded Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD).13 The Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) is an official initiative of NED that coordinates this work and lists OSF as a partner.14 Luminate, together with the MIDF, has facilitated “dedicated coaching and newsroom expertise in topics such as marketing, newsletters, community building, and audience development” for M&G.15
4. Key senior people in publications like the M&G and amaBhungane, including three former editors-in-chief of the M&G have gone on to work for U.S. and Western government-supported organizations, including three separate projects funded by the NED.16 17 18
5. At least fifteen people who passed through the fellowship program run by
amaBhungane have been directly tied to U.S. government organizations and programs including the Voice of America.19 amaBhungane has also led the formation of a regional investigative journalism network, IJ Hub.20
6. The M&G, the Daily Maverick and amaBhungane, as well as smaller projects like the M&G-linked Daily Vox and the local U.S. embassy-linked Africa Check,21 are part of a list of at least 24 publications that have been funded by one or more of the major funders that regularly partner with the U.S. government.22
As we continue with our research we are finding more NED links. For instance the NED has funded the Institute for Race Relations (IRR),23 which publishes the Daily Friend,24 a publication that is ostensibly liberal, but veers towards the reactionary right wing weltanschauung. Sam Sole, the editor of amaBhungane, is a member of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ),25 which is funded by the NED.26 We are also finding more and more links between organizations, like the OSF and Luminate, and the U.S. state. It is also likely that some journalists are funded directly by organizations, so that the claim to independence of organizations can be upheld.
The Oppenheimer family, whose wealth was wrung from the super-exploitation of Black labor in the mines, have long had considerable influence over political life in South Africa, including during the negotiations where the right of capital to continue to exploit was affirmed.27 But it is clear that, like OSF and Luminate, the Oppenheimers are also key partners of the U.S. state. The Oppenheimers fund amaBhungane28 and are given the red carpet treatment by the Daily Maverick to platform for their surrogates such as Greg Mills to propagate their pro-Western worldview.29 Founded by Branko Brkic, the Daily Maverick does list some funders, but asks you to take a leap of faith that a group of ten trusts, companies, and individuals that own anything between 0.1 percent and 15 percent of its investment holding company, are not compromised or party to any external leverage, as a cohort or as individual opaque entities. It also raises questions that the Daily Maverick and its biggest shareholder, Inkululeko Media, are indexed by Google as sharing the same office address in St. George’s Mall, Cape Town.30 31 Their opaqueness flies in the face of the Daily Maverick’s claims of transparency, which are merely a marketing strategy. Since their reader covenant was drafted in 2009, the Daily Maverick has become an important and influential player in the polity. It has evolved beyond being a blog with an angle that punched above its lightweight class and has accrued a tremendous amount of institutional authority in shaping discourse and curating narratives. With this power comes the responsibility to precisely disclose its funding. In short, it’s time for Daily Maverick to grow up, just like its peers in the mediascape.
The Oppenheimers also fund the Institute for Race Relations (IRR),32 the South African Institute for International Affairs,33 and their own foundation, the Brenthurst Foundation34. In each case, the links to the U.S. state are clear. Chester Crocker, who was Ronald Reagan’s point man in southern Africa at the height of the Cold War35 is an “honorary life member” and board member of the IRR.36 The Brenthurst Foundation has clear and open links of various kinds to NATO. The director of the Brenthurst Foundation, Greg Mills,37 served as a special advisor to the NATO Commander David Richards, who commanded the Western coalition forces as they stomped their way across Afghanistan.38 Greg Mills39 is one of four foreign policy right-wing hawks who are “allowed” to write on geopolitical affairs by the Daily Maverick. The other three are former U.S. diplomat Brooks Spector,40 former editor of M&G and president of consultancy group Calabar Consulting, Phillip van Niekerk,41 and lifetime foreign affairs hawk and stenographer of Western imperial interests, Peter Fabricius. Fabricius and Spector are also linked to the South African Institute of International Affairs as “experts”.42 The SAIIA is funded by USAID and the U.S. Department of State.43 But the systemic capture of much of our mediascape by the U.S. state and its partners extends beyond questions of funding, training programs, revolving doors, boards and collaborations of various kinds. There is also the question of editorial lines. In a number of publications, there is a systemic bias towards pro-U.S. positions, and very, very little critique of U.S. imperialism. There are a number of people writing as independent analysts, who are in fact embedded in the U.S. state in various ways. We also see that while the media has often served the interests of the public in terms of uncovering corruption in government, it has often done comparatively little in terms of doing the same in terms of private sector corruption, abuse of workers and control of policy.
All this is just scratching the surface. We are finding much, much more evidence of widespread media capture with every hour of research. Already some key questions are emerging for future research and articles. They include the following:
- Why is the Daily Maverick’s funding not fully and precisely disclosed—including, in particular, the details on all equity, loan, or subsidy transactions?
- How are the amaBhungane fellowship and training programs funded? Are there project costs, fees and expenses received from programs funded directly or indirectly from U.S. government agencies? Why do such large numbers of the fellows go on to work for U.S. government funded projects?
- Which publishers, editors and journalists have attended the regular events for editors held by the U.S. consulate in Cape Town? What are the details of other briefings held by U.S.-directly or -indirectly funded organizations that senior leaders of South African media attend?
- Who are the former publishers, editors and journalists who now work for the U.S. state or for U.S.-state directly or -indirectly funded organizations?
- What other media projects are funded by the NED, OSF, Luminate and the Oppenheimers?
- What is the percentage of articles in our “independent” media on geopolitics that support the U.S. line on international affairs and the percentage of those that are critical?
Transparency is a basic democratic value. It is time we knew who the masters of our media really are. It cannot be acceptable that while the editors and reporters of these publications demand accountability and transparency of those in government, labor and, occasionally, in business, they arrogate to themselves the right to not meet the same standards.
Our research project is growing in scope and urgency by the day. We need help from all interested citizens of South Africa who wish to contribute to media reform in the interests of transparency and the important work of defending and deepening our democracy. As a start, we welcome suggestions for further questions for us to explore and, in due course, to present to the South African National Editors’ Forum (SANEF). Please do contact us at [email protected] and share the questions that you think should be raised.
Phillip Dexter and Roscoe Palm are co-founders of the Pan-African Institute for Socialism, which can be found on Twitter at @PaisSocialism.
Footnotes
1 The Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) started as a cultural movement in present day KwaZulu-Natal, but quickly morphed into a political movement to oppose the ANC’s liberation struggle. See “Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP),” South African History Online.
2 For example, in a recent opinion piece in Financial Times, Gideon Rachman wrote, “The best thing [the ANC] could do for the country’s future would be to lose the next election and leave power.” Gideon Rachman, “South Africa’s fear of state failure,” Financial Times, Aug. 15, 2022
3 See Ajit Singh and Roscoe Palm, “Manufacturing consent: How the United States has penetrated South African media,” MR Online, Aug. 8, 2022.
4 See David Ignatius, “Innocence Abroad: The New World of Spyless Coups,” The Washington Post, Sept. 22, 1991 (“‘A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,’” agrees [Allen] Weinstein.” Weinstein was a co-founder of the NED.)
5 See David K. Shipler, “Missionaries for Democracy: U.S. Aid for Global Pluralism,” The New York Times, June 1, 1986.
6 For example, in FY2021 alone, the NED’s Africa program granted $41.5 million dollars across 34 countries and hundreds of projects. See National Endowment for Democracy, 2021 Annual Report.
7 See National Endowment for Democracy, “Regional: Africa 2021,” Feb. 11, 2022.
8 See International Fund for Public Interest Media, “About”.
9 See National Endowment for Democracy, Awarded Grants Search, (search: “Media Institute of Southern Africa”). Additionally, MISA has received funding from and is a “key partner” of the U.S. Agency for International Development. See United States. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs, Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations for 2002: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventh Congress, First Session, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2001, p. 870.
10 See Simon Allison LinkedIn.
11 See Institute for Security Studies, “How we work”.
12 “Private sector funding of independent media abroad … has several advantages over public financing. Private funders can be more flexible … and their programs can operate in countries where U.S. government-funded programs are unwelcome. “In many places around the world, the people we train are more open to participating in programs funded by private sources than those funded by the U.S. government,” says Patrick Butler, ICFJ [International Center for Journalists] vice president.” National Endowment for Democracy, Center for International Media Assistance, Empowering Independent Media Inaugural Report: 2008, Ed. Marguerite Sullivan, (cited in Manufacturing consent article).
13 According to the Global Forum for Media Development, OSF and NED are its “core funders.” See Global Forum for Media Development, “Partnerships”.
14 See Center for International Media Assistance, “Partners”.
15 See Luminate Group, “Sixteen media selected for Membership in News Fund,” Feb. 4, 2021.
16 Roper became editor-in-chief of M&G in 2009 and left in 2015 to become the Deputy CEO of Code for Africa (CfA). CfA is a member of Code for All, which is funded by the NED. Additionally, Roper was a Knight Fellow at the International Center for Journalists, which is also funded by the NED. See, Chis Roper LinkedIn profile; Code for All, “Our Supporters”; International Center for Journalists, Impact Report, 2022, p. 17.
17 Former editor-in-chief Khadija Patel (2016-2020) left the M&G to chair the NED-sponsored International Press Institute. In 2021, Patel became head of programs at the NED-funded International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM). See fn. 2 (above) (NED funding of IFPIM); International Press Institute, “Supporters and Partners”; International Press Institute, “Executive Board”; International Fund for Public Interest Media, “About”.
18 Former editor-in-chief Phillip van Niekerk (1997-2000) left the M&G to take up a senior position at the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) in Washington D.C. ICIJ is funded by the NED. See “New editor of M&G,” Mail & Guardian, Mar. 20, 1997; “Over to you, Dr Barrell,” Mail & Guardian, Dec. 15, 2000; International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, “Our Supporters”.
19 See “Manufacturing consent: How the United States has penetrated South African media.” Full citation at fn. 3.
20 AmaBhungane “is incubating the Hub… As incubator, amaBhungane has continued to support the Hub administratively.” IJ Hub, Annual Narrative Report 2021/21.
21 See Africa Check, “Partners” (“The U.S. Embassy in South Africa is proud to team up with Africa Check to tackle misinformation and disinformation in the media.”).
22 In addition to their own media-related grants, OSF and Luminate jointly founded the South African Media Innovation Program, a multi-million dollar media investment initiative managed by the Media Development Investment Fund, which is also funded by OSF and Luminate. See South Africa Media Innovation Program; Luminate Group, “South Africa Media Innovation Program (SAMIP) launched by Open Society Foundation of South Africa (OSF-SA), Omidyar Network, and Media Development Investment Fund,” Aug. 29, 2017.
23 See i.e. South African Institute of Race Relations, 86th Annual Report, 2015, p. 7. Additionally, the IRR has partnered with the International Republican Institute, which is one of NED’s four core institutes. See International Republican Institute, “Democratic Governance in Africa”; National Endowment for Democracy, “How We Work”. The IRR is also a member institute of the NED’s Network of Democracy Research Institutes. (See National Endowment for Democracy, “NDRI Member Institutes” (https://www.ned.org/ideas/network-of-democracy-research-institutes-ndri/ndri-member-institutes/#Top).
24 “The Daily Friend is the online newspaper of the Institute of Race Relations.” Daily Friend, “About” (https://dailyfriend.co.za/about/).
25 See International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, “Sam Sole”.
26 See International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, “Our Supporters”.
27 See Sampie Terreblanche, “The New South Africa’s original ‘State Capture’”, Africa Is a Country, Jan. 28, 2018.
28 See amaBhungane, “About Us”.
29 See https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/author/ray-hartley-and-greg-mills
30 See https://www.sayellow.com/view/south-africa/daily-maverick-in-cape-town
31 See footer on Inkululeko website for address.
32 See Oppenheimer Memorial Trust, “All Beneficiaries – S”
33 See Oppenheimer Memorial Trust, “All Beneficiaries – S”
34 See The Brenthurst Foundation, “Our Story”.
35 Interestingly, a 1983 New York Times profile of the Oppenheimer empire opens with the following: “In an oracular vein, an academic named Chester A. Crocker once said of South Africa: That country is by its nature a part of the West. It is an integral and important element of the Western global, economic system. Mr. Crocker, who has since become the State Department’s top Africa hand and author of the Reagan Administration’s policy of “constructive engagement” with South Africa’s white minority Government, was openly embracing a premise found in both South African propaganda and the arguments of Marxist analysts: that the West’s formal condemnations of apartheid mask an enormous stake in the outcome of the shadowy struggle between the races there.” See Joseph Lelyveld, “Oppenheimer of South Africa,” The New York Times, May 8, 1983.
36 See South African Institute of Race Relations, 92nd Annual Report, 2021, p. 6.
37 See The Brenthurst Foundation, “Greg Mills”.
38 See Greg Mills, From Africa to Afghanistan: With Richards and NATO to Kabul, Wits University Press, 2007.
40 See J. Brooks Spector author page at Daily Maverick.
41 See Phillip van Niekerk author page at Daily Maverick.
42 See South African Institute of International Affairs “Expert” pages for Peter Fabricius and Brooks Spector.
43 See South African Institute of International Affairs, “Funders”.

Buhari Warns About Foreign Meddling As Nigeria Heads to Polls to Decide on Next President
Nigeria’s president has scolded Western diplomats for their comments about the way the February 25 presidential election is being run, warning against foreign meddling. Countries across Africa are up against Western-backed coup attempts and Western-supported disinformation campaigns. African Stream reports.

‘You Can’t Combat Corruption with Phrases on TikTok’: Gustavo Petro Denounces Flashy Competitor As Colombian Presidential Election Heads to Second Round

CALÍ, Colombia—Former militant-turned-politician Gustavo Petro had sharp words for his flashy millionaire opponent, who is thought to have won votes among the Colombian youth because of his presence on a social media platform.
“You can’t combat corruption with phrases on TikTok,” Petro told a crowd on Sunday night in Bogotá. He referred to Rodolfo Hernández, 77, who ran his campaign on ending corruption based on his success in the construction industry.
During Sunday’s first round of the presidential election, Petro did not garner the 50 percent needed to avoid a second round on June 19. He won 40 percent of votes while Hernández received 28 percent. The first round attracted 47 percent of the country’s 39 million registered voters.

Hernández, who ran on the League of Anti-Corruption Governors ticket, has been compared to former U.S. President Donald Trump and former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, both known for sex scandals and off-the-cuff remarks. However, what might help Hernández win the presidency is an alliance of right-wing and center-right candidates who had run in the first round. Competitors like right-wing Team for Colombia coalition candidate Federíco Gutiérrez and center-right-wing Hope Center coalition candidate Sergio Fajardo announced their support for Hernández in their concession speeches Sunday night.
Ajamu Baraka, an advisor to Francia Márquez, Petro’s vice-presidential running mate, said right-wing forces combined with systematic voter suppression through violence and intimidation will make it difficult for the Pacto Histórico ticket to pull off a win.
“Turnout is going to be key, but as we saw yesterday, there are areas where paramilitary forces intentionally prevented communities from voting,” he said. “Communities that—if they voted—they would have voted for the Historic Pact.”

AfroResistance, a group that advocates for Afro-descendant women and girls in the Americas, helped organize a 29-woman election observer delegation, the largest group of observers in the history of Colombia’s elections organized through Misión de Observación Electoral (Electoral Observation Mission). Half of the group observed the process in Calí, while the other half monitored in the predominantly Afro-descendant port city of Buenaventura.
Election observers founded irregularities in Buenaventura, where a 2017 civil strike shut down the country’s main port on the Pacific Ocean for 22 days.

Representatives from Pacto Histórico—the left-wing coalition Petro ran his campaign through—were kidnapped and disappeared from the polling site after the group of observers left. Parties were permitted to keep party observers at each voting station. After consulting with a Buenaventura-based observer, the observers decided to not return to the site to inquire. Election officials were not immediately available to comment to Toward Freedom.
Buenaventura is known for “chop houses,” buildings where paramilitaries have been known to cut adversaries’ bodies alive as a warning to others. Paramilitaries in Colombia have guarded for years the production and flow of drugs out of the country. Meanwhile, the United States has for 22 years poured $4.5 billion in the form of military training and arms into Colombia.
Voting appears to go smoothly in another voting station in Calí. Local activist Charo Mina Rojas (@renacientes) says many more people are voting, but fear of the repercussions for expressing opinions have kept campaign signage on cars and buildings to a minimum. #ColombiaDecide pic.twitter.com/Vf9ULHIcrm
— Toward Freedom (@TowardFreedom) May 29, 2022
Jemima Pierre, an AfroResistance delegation observer who represented the Black Alliance for Peace as the organization’s Haiti/Americas Coordinator, said polling stations in Calí were categorized on a range of one to six, with six representing the most affluent neighborhoods. She and her group of observers were assigned to visit polling stations that ranged between three and six. They noticed the more affluent neighborhoods contained biometric machines that checked voter identification cards.
“It seemed to me there was a correlation between class, color, access,” she said.

Charo Mina Rojas, a member of Proceso de Comunidades Negras, an alliance of Afro-descendant organizations in Colombia, said it’s normal for people to post signs of campaigns they support on their cars and homes. This year was different, though.
“It’s a lot more low-profile, low-key this time,” she said, adding she hadn’t heard people openly speaking about for whom they are voting. “It’s hard to know. I think some people feel afraid of saying who they are voting for because it’s so contested and kind of dangerous for some of us.”
Indeed, many voters declined to speak with this reporter outside a poll in Calí, citing their fear.
“People may be voting for a change, but keeping it quiet to keep safe,” Mina said after voting at a poll in Calí.
But some voters were happy to share their perspectives with Toward Freedom.
“[Change] depends on us. We have to stop what’s been happening for years,” said Jaime Rodriguez, 69, commenting on decades of paramilitary violence tied to the Colombian elites and U.S. control of the state. That’s why he said he voted for Petro. “The government meddles everywhere.”
Margarita Ramirez, a retired marketing firm researcher who spent her career traveling through urban and remote areas of the country, told Toward Freedom she voted for Petro.
“The situation of the people in the city is very different from the situation in the rural areas,” she said, describing her travels to Amazonian areas like Arauca, where she witnessed a mother with no food to feed her children breakfast. The World Bank states 35 percent of Colombians live in poverty. Only 69 percent of Colombians eat three meals per day. “Those people do not have access to electricity, to water, to education, to food. There is no dignity.”
Meanwhile, in the cities, house maids can work upwards of 13 hours a day, leaving their children to fend for themselves, said Ramirez, 59.
“Why don’t those people help those people’s children have access to shoes, to education?” she asked. “It’s time for a change.”
Julie Varughese is editor of Toward Freedom. She recently reported on Colombia’s presidential elections here and here.