Rise Mzansi leader Songezo Zibi has come out swinging in defence of his party’s controversial R30 million declaration, insisting the Rise Mzansi R30 million donation is fully above board and complies with the country’s Political Party Funding Act. Speaking at a media briefing in Johannesburg on Monday, Zibi laid out exactly how an election-time loan ended up being recorded as a donation.
The story starts with the party’s 2024 election campaign. According to Zibi, Rise Mzansi borowed money from an organisation called “We Are The People” to fund its run for Parliament, fully intending to pay it back on commercial terms.
That repayment never materialised in full. Zibi said the party managed to service more than R1 million towards the debt before running out of road, leaving a substantial balance it simply could not settle.
When the lender wrote off the outstanding amount, the law kicked in. Under the Political Party Funding Act, a forgiven loan counts as a financial benefit, and any financial benefit must be declared as a donation.
“We took legal advice before the election on the kind of fundraising methods and support that would be acceptable in terms of the Political Party Funding Act,” Zibi told reporters. He was adamant that nothing about the arangement crossed a legal line.
He rejected any suggestion of impropriety outright, pointing out that the legislation permits juristic persons to donate to parties within set limits. “We Are The People”, he said, qualifies as a juristic person and is therefore entitled to give within those thresholds.
Crucially, Zibi stressed that no fresh cash changed hands. “This is not R30 million given to Rise Mzansi now. It’s election-time debt from before,” he said. “There’s no money that has changed hands. The benefit is that the loan has been written off.”
He compared the accounting treatment to how banks handle impaired debt, framing it as standard financial practice rather than a backdoor funding scheme. When a party cannot repay, he argued, the choice is stark: liquidate, or write off the loan.
What the Rise Mzansi R30 million donation row reveals about funding rules
Zibi went further, accusing critics of applying uneven scrutiny across the political landscape. He noted that some declared donors appear in official records as nothing more than company registration numbers, yet draw almost no public questioning.
By contrast, “We Are The People” has a website and a YouTube channel, and a track record of backing voter education and donating to other parties, including the GOOD Party and the United Democratic Movement (UDM). “People ask who We Are The People is, but there are other donors that attract no scrutiny at all,” he said.
To make his point about legality, Zibi held up the Democratic Alliance’s funding as a comparison. He said DA donor Michel le Roux and entities under his control had collectively given R58 million to the party through separate legal vehicles, each staying within the legal cap.
| Party | Disclosed donations | Notable detail |
|—|—|
| DA | R57.3 million | Nearly 60% of all donations reported |
| Rise Mzansi | R30 million | A converted loan write-off, not new cash |
The figures show just how dominant the DA’s fundraising has been this cycle, while Rise Mzansi’s headline number stems from a very different mechanism, an old debt reclassified rather than money freshly raised.
The timing maters. Zibi also flagged that the donation threshold had recently doubled from R15 million to R30 million, meaning the declaration had to reflect the updated ceiling set out in the legislation.
His remarks follow questions raised by the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) when it published its latest funding disclosure report. The commission said it is seeking additional detail on the Rise Mzansi entry because the amount came from converting an existing loan into a donation.
The IEC was careful in its language. It has not accused anyone of wrongdoing, but said the transaction did not begin as a direct donation, and the terms of the conversion are being examined to confirm full compliance with the Act.
| Detail | IEC position |
|—|
| Origin of funds | Loan conversion, not a direct donation |
| Allegation made | None at this stage |
| Action taken | Seking further information and assessment |
The takeaway is that this is an inquiry, not a finding. The commission wants clarity on how the write-off was structured before drawing any conclusions.
The broader disclosure report, covering January to March 2026, showed parties puling in a combined R97.2 million ahead of the local government elections set for 4 November. The DA accounted for the lion’s share, declaring R57.3 million, made up of R54.9 million in monetary donations and R2.4 million in in-kind support.
Among the DA’s biggest backers were Main Street 1564 (Pty) Ltd, Fynbos Ekwiteit (Pty) Ltd, M. Slack and Fynbos Kapitaal (Pty) Ltd, each chipping in between R10 million and R13 million. Further contributions came from G. Ryan (R4 million), D. Barnes (R3 million) and the Danish Liberal Democracy Programme (R1.27 million).
For now, the spotlight stays on Rise Mzansi and how transparently it can explain the journey from a 2024 campaign loan to a declared donation. Zibi’s argument rests on a simple claim, that the law not only allows what happened but actually requires the disclosure, and the IEC’s review will ultimately decide whether that reading holds.