South African security agencies are observing a planned domestic campaign against gender-based violence with a heightened degree of caution, a vigilance rooted in the alleged exploitation of public protests during the 2023 Brics summit.
According to a Sunday World investigation, foreign actors were then accused of capitalising on socioeconomic desperation, turning private hardship into public political theatre through a rent-a-crowd scheme where offers of R500 or more were extended to ordinary citizens.
In a nation where the economy is bleeding and one in three adults is unemployed, R500 is not merely pocket change; it is survival money. And where survival becomes negotiable, influence becomes cheap.
Testimonies from participants in the 2023 Brics protests allege that crowds were systematically recruited and paid. One participant, Inga Mdemka, admitted to being recruited through NGO networks to create posters and “write bad things about the President of India”, for which he was paid R1 000 in cash.
Mdemka claimed his “boss” had mentioned Crisis Action, UAZA (Ukrainian Association of South Africa), and Amnesty International as being connected to the protest.
This historical precedent now directly informs the state’s posture towards the upcoming #WomenShutdown, a protest organized by the non-profit Women For Change. Asked about their planned activities, an activist from the organization said in a social media interaction that “details would be revealed in due course”.
A senior official within the state security services confirmed that while the government backs the cause, the “spooks have their eyes closely fixed” on the widespread “purple campaign”.
The official pointed to a pattern of protest campaigns during international events being leveraged by “foreign elements to embarrass the government as a host”, and indicated that any “instigators who might try to exploit GBV for their interests are monitored”.
The organisers of the November protest are calling on women and members of the LGBTQI+ community to refrain from all paid and unpaid work, and to abstain from spending for an entire day, aiming to demonstrate the profound economic and social impact of their absence and to demand that GBV be declared a national disaster.
The allegations from the Brics protests, however, cast a long shadow. Crisis Action, an international NGO registered in South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, the UK, France, Germany and the United States, has strongly denied involvement.
Its deputy CEO, Janah Ncube, described the accusations as “false, misleading and deeply disappointing”, stating, “We have never organized or financed any protest. We do not pay people.”
Yet, the consistency of the protesters’ accounts, the same recruiter, payment patterns, and messaging described by unrelated individuals, raises persistent questions: if not Crisis Action, who financed the coordination and cash payouts?
This is not the first time Crisis Action has been mentioned in debates around foreign influence. Last year, the EFF called for tighter regulation of foreign-funded NGOs, accusing some of being “proxies for Western interests”.
UAZA denied receiving any protest-related support from Crisis Action, saying its collaboration was limited to cultural events in 2022. The EFF rejected this, insisting that foreign influence networks are attempting to fracture Brics unity.
This historical context, combined with South Africa’s contentious foreign policy positions, shapes the current security calculus. The security official suggested that the country’s support for Palestine against Israel’s actions in Gaza has “earned the country enemies who would like to undermine its sovereignty”.
The fear is that the legitimate, urgent outrage over gender-based violence could provide a potent veil for those same interests to again manipulate social despair. As the purple campaign prepares to silence the nation, the state’s security apparatus is watching, wary that South Africa’s profound vulnerability lies not in policy, but in poverty.
When youth unemployment sits above 50%, a nominal sum can buy more than a meal; it can buy a crowd and a message. As long as these conditions persist, the government believes every national protest, no matter how righteous, remains a potential stage for international score-settling.
