In this episode of ‘Eusebius on TimesLIVE’, the host examines views about race that Patriotic Alliance leader Gayton McKenzie articulated in a recent interview. McKaiser explains in detail why he agrees with McKenzie that a political party based on narrow racialised politics, targeting only coloured people, is not politically savvy. But McKaiser then spends the rest of his audio analysis explaining why he disagrees with McKenzie that we should “cancel race”.

Eusebius McKaiser hosted well-known human rights and social justice activist, Mark Heywood, on his TimesLIVE podcast. They were in conversation about how new political players, especially those who will be contesting the 2024 general elections, could maximise their chances of making a real and positive democratic difference. Heywood and McKaiser started off by sketching their respective takes on the overall state of South Africa's democracy. Both of them focused on data that reveal various deep social crises, which rob most South Africans of living meaningful lives. Given their overlapping consensus, McKaiser quickly moved on to teasing out three critical themes from Heywood about the possibility that civil society could disrupt the current party political system by contesting political power, which the likes of Rise Mzansi are intending to do, as well as individuals like well-known activist, Zackie Achmat. The bulk of the podcast episode focuses on Heywood carefully explaining three broad themes: a) the importance of actively and immediately helping communities in practical ways to demonstrate what you could do, at scale, if voted into power; b) the importance of articulating about five very clear, radical, feasible and well-thought through ideas that you campaign on; and c) the importance of co-operating as new political vehicles (rather than each working alone) in order to contest and disrupt hegemonic political power most effectively. McKaiser and Heywood ended their conversation by also briefly reflecting on a) how new political entrants might deal with donors who are reluctant to fund them; b) avoiding political ideology and terminology that are overused and wooly; and c) learning the art of clear, explanatory and persuasive political communication.

In this edition of Eusebius on TimesLIVE, the podcast host briefly frames the legal and political issues related to the ongoing controversy around the possible visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to South Africa later this year. While acknowledging that law and politics are intertwined in this matter, McKaiser tries to separate the nexus legal issues from the geopolitical ones. There is a brief summary of what legal expert Dr James Grant said about the interpretation of the Rome Statute, a treaty that is domesticated in South African law. A key case that has featured this law is that of Omar al-Bashir, former Sudanese president, who had not been arrested when he was on South African soil and an ICC warrant of arrest had been issued. Grant explains why the precedent in that case implies a legal duty to arrest Putin, should he come to South Africa. The political considerations, argues Grant, are inferior to the rule of law. But the heart of this episode of Eusebius on TimesLIVE is about South Africa's foreign policy posture. McKaiser offers trenchant criticism of South Africa's foreign policy stance which he describes as "not just vague but incoherent". In the rest of the audio, he explains how and why South Africa is muddled and what the negative consequences are on the international stage as a result of the alleged vagueness, incoherence and unpredictability of the country's views on key institutions such as the ICC. McKaiser concludes "it is a not a good look" for the international relations and co-operation department to dither on what it thinks of the ICC. To understand the logic of this criticism, listen to the full podcast audio. As always, every listener of Eusebius on TimesLIVE decides where their own view lands, having listened to the guests on the show.

Matshidiso Lencoasa is a budget researcher at Section 27, a well-known South African public interest law centre. With multiple degrees in accounting sciences, international development and education, she brings a uniquely important set of skills to the work of Section 27. She focuses on how best budget interventions, at all levels of government, may be used to get us closer to a South Africa that is substantively equal, and in which socio-economic rights are fully realised. In this edition of Eusebius on TimesLIVE, she engaged the podcast host on various aspects of Freedom Day. They started off by acknowledging the importance of civil and political rights before reflecting on the normative value of socio-economic rights also enshrined in our constitution. Lencoasa furthermore remarked on the importance of economic rights to ensure that every citzen's human potenial is fully realised. McKaiser and Lencoasa also spent time on the importance of being vigilant about the gap between the vision in the Bill of Rights, and section 27 in particular, and material conditions of vast deprivation that millions of people still live under. Lencoasa was optimistic, however, that although there is still some "awkwardness" in public discourse when questions about land and economic justice are raised, that economic rights debates must be framed and insisted on. She agreed with McKaiser that reconciliation is not achievable without economic justice. The conversation ended with Lencoasa explaining to McKaiser how severe technical and capacity weaknesses within all spheres of government result in resources not being spent on the vulnerable. This means that, besides monies that are lost due to corruption and state capture, the South African state is also sufficiently fit for social justice purpose. Interestingly, she ends off the conversation by justifying her relative optimism about the country's future despite the structural and empirical issued explored with McKaiser. As always, listeners of Eusebius on TimesLIVE can decide whether or not they agree with the host and his guest.

Respected former Wits university legal academic Dr James Grant joined Eusebius McKaiser on his TimesLIVE podcast to focus on whether it is compulsory for the government to arrest Russian president Vladimir Putin should he come to South Africa. Grant argued that while there are legal complexities, besides the obvious geopolitical debates on the issue, in the end, South Africa would struggle to persuade a court that it has no obligation to comply with the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC). South Africa domesticated the Rome Statute in 2000 after signing it in 1998 and it is now part and parcel of enforceable South African law. Grant examined the apparent tension between customary international law that allows heads of state diplomatic immunity and the status of a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Omar al-Bashir. South Africa was found legally wanting for not arresting the former Sudanese president. Grant argues that though there is internal ambiguity within the Rome Statute and a hierarchy of sources of law has not been resolved definitively and jurisprudentially, South Africa will nevertheless have to be guided by the SCA's judgment in the al-Bashir case as it is, effectively, law. Grant ended his conversation with McKaiser by explaining that political criticism of the ICC is insufficient to assist the government in avoiding diplomatic fallout with Russia. It must respect South African law or support someone accused of heinous crimes by the ICC, of which it is a member.