South African Navy chief Monde Lobese is expected to face repercussions at the Union Buildings over Iran’s participation in Exercise MOSI (Will for Peace), which began last Friday off the Western Cape coast near Simon’s Town and False Bay.
The Sunday Times has established that Vice-Admiral Lobese is the man at the centre of the controversy, with fingers being pointed squarely in his direction. Some senior ministers have claimed he acted against the interests of the country.
Lobese is said to have written a letter to the department of international relations and co-operation (Dirco) last Friday, confirming Iran’s participation in the exercise and stating that approval had been granted at the top level. This followed a query from Dirco seeking clarity on Iran’s status in the exercise, having been led to believe the Gulf state had been relegated to observer status.
The Sunday Times understands from various government sources that after the protests in Iran — during which about 2,500 rioters were reportedly killed — President Cyril Ramaphosa convened a meeting last Friday with his national security adviser, Sydney Mufamadi, defence minister Angie Motshekga, minister in the presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni and international relations and co-operation minister Ronald Lamola.
This took place as US President Donald Trump held off on military strikes against Iran, claiming the country had halted all executions.
According to sources, Ramaphosa instructed that Iran should not participate in the naval exercise, themed “Joint Actions to Ensure the Safety of Key Shipping Lanes and Maritime Economic Activities”, and that it should instead be relegated to observer status — alongside Brazil, Ethiopia and Indonesia.
After a final planning conference held in Shanghai from November 5 to 7 2025 with the same nations (Ethiopia attending virtually), the following BRICS+ countries pledged their participation:
- Republic of South Africa (sending vessels);
- Russian Federations (sending vessels);
- People’s Republic of China (sending vessels);
- United Arab Emirates (sending vessels);
- Islamic Republic of Iran (sending vessels);
- Indonesia (observers);
- Ethiopia (observers); and
- Brazil (observers).
The stated purpose of the naval exercise was to “deepen relations among friendly nations, improve co-ordinated action against maritime security threats, and demonstrate a collective commitment to regional maritime peace and stability”.
However, sources close to Ramaphosa say his instruction was not heeded, prompting Motshekga on Friday to announce the establishment of a board of inquiry to investigate whether the president’s instructions were ignored.
“The minister of defence [Motshekga] would like to place on record that the instruction was clearly communicated to all parties concerned, agreed upon, and was to be implemented and adhered to as such,” defence spokesperson Siphiwe Dlamini said in a statement.
“Due to the seriousness of these allegations and reports in the media, the minister has established a board of inquiry to look into the circumstances surrounding the allegations and establish whether the instruction of the president may have been misrepresented and/or ignored.”
Dlamini said the board had been given seven days to submit its report.
A SANDF general, speaking on condition of anonymity, stressed that from day one, the naval exercise was arranged and organised by the SANDF’s joint operations [JOPS] division, and not the SA Navy. The navy was brought in to host the exercise and provide logistical support.
“As such, questions about who participated in the exercise and how they participated should be directed to joint ops and not the SA Navy.”
The general added that Ramaphosa’s instruction to withdraw Iran from the exercise was communicated to JOPS via SANDF chief Gen Rudzani Maphwanya.
“It is JOPS that should have effected the decision to withdraw Iran from the exercise, and not the SA Navy,” the general said, adding that politicians should stop scapegoating Lobese.
The general said Ramaphosa, Motshekga and Ntshavheni had been kept apprised of developments and were satisfied — until the US embassy began raising questions about Iran’s participation.
Complicating matters further is an alleged breakdown in the relationship between Lobese and his superior, Maphwanya — reportedly so severe that Lobese no longer attends weekly military command council meetings chaired by Maphwanya. This has fuelled speculation that the inquiry may be little more than a formality and is likely to focus on Lobese.
Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, said Dirco and the presidency were generally not involved during the initial stages of conceptualising and planning military exercises.
“The instruction from the president — and the subsequent discussions and agreement with all concerned parties — was that Iran would no longer participate in the drills,” Magwenya said. “The board of inquiry will therefore look at what transpired from the time the instruction was [issued] to the time the exercise started.”
He added: “This is an area that is managed by the military commanders in line with various agreements of defence co-operation.”
We must ask whether [he] is not acting maliciously against the interest of the country. His conduct is very questionable
— Senior source
Ministers close to Ramaphosa claim the president was livid when he learnt — through the media — that Iran was participating and had not been relegated to observer status.
“He [Lobese] must first be asked who gave him permission to host Iran in our waters, and who he consulted with in government,” said one source. “Secondly, why explain after the fact in that letter?”
Another senior source close to the president said: “Lobese wants to cause a crisis for the country. The question here is, has he not gone rogue?”
The source questioned whose interests Lobese was serving. “We must ask whether [he] is not acting maliciously against the interest of the country. His conduct is very questionable.”
The president was also unhappy that Iran had announced its participation before South Africa.
“The fact that Iran was the first to announce [the drill] was malicious and disrespectful of our sovereignty,” the source said. “You don’t do that; you don’t announce such things before the host country. America has now put us on a watchlist because of this.”
An ally should not act in a way that harms your interests. “They [Iran] are not checking what is in South Africa’s interests but are pursuing their own interests at [our] expense,” the source added.
However, another senior government source said Lobese could not have acted without authorisation, suggesting that Ramaphosa had reversed course under US pressure linked to trade negotiations.
“They panicked because there is no way the minister [Motshekga] would have defied the president, or that the chief of the navy did this alone,” said the source.
Lobese, who was appointed chief of the navy in 2022, declined to comment.
This marks the second time in less than a year that the actions of senior military officials have courted controversy. In August 2025, SANDF chief Maphwanya visited Tehran, met top with Iranian military officials, reportedly pledged solidarity with Iran, criticised Israel, and called for deeper military co-operation between South Africa and Iran.
His utterances were almost immediately disavowed by Dirco, while Ramaphosa revealed he was unaware of the trip. Maphwanya escaped censure after it emerged he had received permission from Motshekga, albeit long before the visit.
Lobese himself sparked controversy late in 2025 when, in a public address, he lamented the underfunding of the defence force and questioned whether it was driven by an ulterior motive to weaken its ability to safeguard South Africa’s borders.
The decision to institute a military board of inquiry did not sit well with Darren Olivier, analyst with African Defence Review, who suggested that the president should have instituted his own inquiry.
“This is one of those pivotal moments for the country in that if you do not act quickly and strongly now, you are opening the door to the military becoming more willing to disobey the president and the minister of defence.”
“This is clearly a case where the president has lost their respect, and there is certainly no trust that they will follow his orders.
“All of these generals serve at the pleasure of the president, same as the ministers, so the president in terms of the constitution and the Defence Act has complete right to, at any point, appoint or remove any of these chiefs of service.
“Even a reason as simple as having lost confidence in them is enough, and the government does not have to prove that they broke a law.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.