Parliament’s Ethics Committee has found that Public Works and Infrastructure Minister Dean Macpherson violated the MPs’ code of conduct after referring to ActionSA supporters as “amaphara”. The committee says the term was derogatory and discriminatory, and has recommended that Macpherson be formally reprimanded and apologise in the National Assembly.

The finding follows a complaint filed by ActionSA MP Alan Beesley in July 2025. Beesley argued that Macpherson crossed a line when he used the term during an address outside the Pietermaritzburg High Court on 24 July 2025. He also complained that Macpherson had referred to the same supporters as “hobos” in a separate media interview.

Committee says the word was discriminatory

Beesley told the committee that “amaphara” is commonly used to describe drug users, criminals and people treated as social outcasts. He argued that the remarks were aimed at a group of predominantly black ActionSA supporters and were offensive, racially loaded and dehumanising.

Macpherson denied using the word “hobo” and told the committee that it had appeared in a journalist’s wording, not his own. But he did admit using “amaphara” in reference to an incident outside court, saying he had seen an intoxicated person arrive by taxi and heard that people had allegedly been promised R50, a meal and T-shirts to attend the protest.

The committee did not accept his defence. It said video evidence showed that Macpherson referred not to one person, but to ActionSA supporters more broadly as “amaphara” in green T-shirts.

No breach found over ‘hobo’ claim

Committee co-chairpersons Nonkosi Mvana and Joseph Britz said their research showed that “amaphara” is used to stigmatise poor people, drug users and people seen as societal problems. They found that using the term went against the code because it undermined public trust in Parliament and failed to reflect a commitment to eradicating discrimination.

On the separate “hobo” complaint, however, the committee found no breach. It concluded that the journalist had used the word in the article and that it could not be attributed to Macpherson.

Macpherson was given a chance to respond to the complaint and did so in August 2025, but did not submit written representations on what penalty should be imposed. The committee has now recommended that the National Assembly reprimand him and require him to apologise in the House.

The ruling is significant because it reinforces how closely Parliament is prepared to examine language used by public representatives, especially when it touches on class, race and dignity. In this case, the committee’s message is blunt: political speech has limits, and MPs can be held accountable when they cross them.