President Ramaphosa recently spoke with Musk to address concerns over misinformation surrounding South Africa’s land reform laws.
This conversation comes in the wake of a statement by U.S. President Donald Trump, who recently accused South Africa of seizing land and discriminating against “certain classes of people.”
Trump also vowed to suspend U.S. aid to the country over its land reform policies.
Musk, who has been vocal about the issue, echoed Trump’s stance by referring to South Africa’s land ownership laws as “racist.”
In a post on X, he accused the country of enforcing “openly racist ownership laws,” implying that white landowners were being unfairly targeted.
The phone call between Ramaphosa and Musk was aimed at easing diplomatic tensions between South Africa and the United States over the controversial land expropriation law.
The land expropriation law, signed by President Cyril Ramaphosa, grants the state authority to seize land “in the public interest,” including, in certain cases, without compensation.
The legislation has fueled tensions, and in an effort to ease diplomatic friction, it has been revealed that Musk’s father, Errol Musk, played a key role in facilitating discussions between Ramaphosa and his son.
According to a Reuters report, Bejani Chauke, a senior adviser to President Ramaphosa, reached out to Errol Musk—a 78-year-old engineer—to arrange a direct conversation between the South African leader and Elon Musk.
“I was asked if I could arrange a quick talk between Ramaphosa and Elon last night… so I did, and then they spoke a few minutes later,” Errol Musk confirmed.
To support his claim, he briefly shared WhatsApp exchanges with Chauke.
The South African presidency later confirmed the phone call in a post on X, stating that President Ramaphosa and Musk had spoken on Monday to address “issues of misinformation and distortions” regarding South Africa.
The statement emphasized that during the discussion, Ramaphosa reiterated the country’s commitment to the “rule of law, justice, fairness, and equality” but provided no further details.
