The fallout from South Africa’s recent BRICS naval exercise is getting messier by the day, and right at the centre of it all is Defence Minister Angie Motshekga. What started as a routine BRICS Plus maritime exercise has blown up into a full-blown crisis over whether presidential orders were ignored, and the finger-pointing is getting intense. The big question on everyone’s lips: who’s actually going to take the fall?
What are these naval exercises, and who was supposed to be involved?
The naval event in question took place off South Africa’s coast, near Simon’s Town and False Bay, from 9 to 16 January. Officially called Exercise Will for Peace 2026, it was framed as a BRICS Plus maritime drill with a focus on ‘joint actions to ensure the safety of shipping and maritime economic activities’. Essentially, building a working relationship among participating navies.
South Africa, as the host nation, invited forces from China, Russia, the United Arab Emirates and others to take part. China led the exercise overall, which in principle was meant to be about maritime security training and skills-sharing, particularly those around the strategic Cape sea lanes.
Such drills aren’t unusual in themselves. Countries around the world conduct joint military exercises regularly, and South Africa has hosted similar naval events before. But this particular edition quickly became more complicated than most.
But the controversy centres on Iran’s participation in the naval exercise. Iran is a member of the expanded BRICS Plus grouping and was expected to be part of the event. But according to reports, President Cyril Ramaphosa instructed that Iranian warships only be present as observers. This was with the good intentions of avoiding escalating tensions with the United States.
Despite that, images and on-the-ground accounts showed Iranian vessels operating in False Bay during the exercise. That led Defence Minister Angie Motshekga to order a formal inquiry into whether the President’s instructions were ignored or simply misrepresented.
Motshekga’s response and the Board of Inquiry
On 16 January, as the exercise wrapped up, Motshekga’s office stated that Ramaphosa’s directive had been “clearly communicated to all parties concerned, agreed upon and to be implemented and adhered to as such.” Yet, facing mounting evidence to the contrary, she announced a Board of Inquiry to determine whether the instructions were “misrepresented and/or ignored,” with a report due within seven days.
The optics are stark. Analysts and opposition figures argue that the inquiry, which the minister herself appointed, looks like an attempt to investigate herself rather than take responsibility.
Defence analyst Darren Olivier described it as inadequate and called for Ramaphosa to remove her immediately and launch an independent probe. “Ministers are ultimately accountable for the actions of their department, and this failure is entirely on her for not following through for a week on a presidential order,” he said.
Civilian control under scrutiny
Defence policy experts are questioning whether the episode exposes a crisis in civilian oversight of the military. Analyst Kobus Marais told eNCA that activities like the naval exercise must bolster foreign policy, not undermine it. If a lawful instruction is ignored, it “should worry everyone” and raises serious concerns about who truly calls the shots in the SANDF.
That point resonates with opposition voices, too. Democratic Alliance MP Chris Hattingh has publicly demanded that Motshekga appear before Parliament’s defence committee to explain how the presidential instruction was handled (or mishandled) and whether senior SANDF officials acted outside lawful authority.
The Iran factor and broader diplomatic fallout
Why does this matter so much? Iran is not just another exercise partner. Iran’s international reputation is deeply polarising, especially to the United States, who view Iran as “a destabilising actor and state sponsor of terror,” according to the US embassy in South Africa X page.
The accusation from Washington: “It is particularly unconscionable that South Africa welcomed Iranian security forces as they were shooting, jailing, and torturing Iranian citizens engaging in peaceful political activity South Africans fought so hard to gain for themselves.”
By allowing Iranian ships to participate, whether through miscommunication or defiance, South Africa has inadvertently sent a diplomatic signal that the government may struggle to walk back.
South Africa’s official response: “non-alignment” and sovereignty
Pretoria has stuck to a familiar defence mechanism: South Africa is simply pursuing a non-aligned foreign policy and wants to be an independent global actor. Officials say the drills were intended to foster peaceful cooperation and build capacity among navies in a region with vital shipping routes.
The Department of Defence is emphasising that the President’s directive was communicated and that the inquiry will determine exactly what happened.
But non-alignment has its limits. Critics, who include many opposition politicians, argue that hosting military drills with countries that face Western sanctions or are engaged in controversial actions sends a political message, whether intended or not. “That is not multilateralism. It is selective alignment,” according to Hattingh.
Who faces the fallout?
For Motshekga, the immediate threat is political credit and credibility. Critics argue that by setting up the inquiry herself, she has undercut the perceived independence of the process and shielded her department from meaningful accountability. That opens her up to calls for dismissal.
But the issue could land more broadly. If civilian command over the military is seen to have failed, accountability could extend beyond Motshekga to senior generals and admirals who oversaw the exercise. And if the controversy damages South Africa’s foreign relations, the political and economic consequences could ripple well beyond defence circles.
On the surface, a multinational naval drill isn’t remarkable. But this one has collided with global geopolitics, questions about civilian authority, and a defence minister’s grip on her portfolio.
Emma is a freshly graduated Journalist from Stellenbosch University, who also holds an Honours in history. She joined the explain team, eager to provide thorough and truthful information and connect with her generation.
