Lex Libertas, a think tank founded by former AfriForum deputy CEO Ernst Roets, has accepted a challenge by the chair of the parliamentary Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation, Supra Mahumapelo, to bring the concerns raised in the White Cross project – recently given prominence in a display and conference in Washington DC – to Parliament.

Mahumapelo had said that Parliament was entitled to scrutinise organisations’ engagements with foreign governments and challenged Lex Libertas to present evidence for its claims about farm attacks, property rights, and race-based legislation in a public hearing, under oath and subject to questioning. He said the committee welcomed engagement from all sectors of society, including its critics, describing this as part of a constitutional democracy.

Roets, the organisation’s executive director, said Lex Libertas was ready to defend its findings publicly and answer questions about and defend its claims.

“We accept the invitation,” Roets said in an open letter published this week. “If Parliament wants the evidence, we will bring it.”

Lex Libertas has asked the portfolio committee to arrange a formal public session. It has also proposed inviting other experts who participated in the White Cross conference proceedings.

Roets said the organisation wanted the issues to be examined through evidence and argument rather than political slogans.

Roets said Lex Libertas did not consider farm attacks to be a form of genocide.

“The White Cross Project Campaign Report does not base the White Cross Project on a claim of state-sponsored ‘white genocide’. Nor does it claim that the state directly organises farm attacks,” he wrote. “What it does argue, with supporting evidence, is that farm attacks constitute a distinct and unusually brutal form of rural crime; that political and racial motives are present in at least some cases; that political incitement forms part of the broader environment in which these crimes occur; and that successive governments have responded through denial, downplaying and a failure to provide an adequate specialised rural-safety response.”

On race-based discrimination, Roets said that while critics defended policy by citing constitutional provisions that did not resolve the issue. “You are entitled to defend what you describe as race-based redress, and we are entitled to argue that permanent racial classification and unequal treatment are both undesirable and unjust. That is precisely the kind of substantive disagreement that ought to be debated publicly rather than resolved by labelling one side ‘misinformation’.”

He went on to dispute Mahumapelo’s claims about section 16 of the Constitution, which protects freedom of expression. Roets said the provision did not contain any provisions relating to the misrepresentation of South Africa for material advantage, as Mahumapelo had inferred.

Roets said that Lex Libertas welcomed what it described as a change or significant clarification in Mahumapelo’s position on removing citizenship. Mahumapelo had previously said that those running campaigns abroad should be stripped of their citizenship, although his latest statement said that nobody had proposed withdrawing citizenship merely because a person held a different political opinion.

Roets said that Mahumaphelo's change in position was to be welcomed. “It would be helpful for you to state that position without qualification.”

Roets said the parliamentary invitation provided an opportunity for the claims to be tested openly.

“The most important development is that Parliament has now said that these matters should be tested openly,” he said. “We agree. Let the claims be stated accurately, let the evidence be examined and let the better argument prevail.”

He added that the suggestion that Lex Libertas has failed to engage with policymakers and government institutions in South Africa is false.

“Lex Libertas has engaged and continues to engage domestic institutions, office-bearers, civil-society organisations, media institutions, and policymakers. We have repeatedly sought dialogue with government and will continue to do so. Indeed, this very exchange arose from an open letter addressed to a Cabinet minister in which we call for dialogue,” he said.

The organisation said it regarded Parliament as an appropriate forum for the discussion, but not the only legitimate one. It would continue engaging with institutions and policymakers in South Africa and internationally. Domestic and foreign advocacy were not mutually incompatible.

“Sovereignty does not confer unlimited authority, nor does it place a state beyond criticism or lawful international scrutiny,” he wrote.

No firm agreement or date for the proposed session has been announced.