Parliament has moved to lift the veil on a diplomatic document hidden from the public record for nearly three decades, and the consequences reach directly into questions of trade, accountability and the everyday interests of South Africans.
At a sitting of Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on International Relations and Cooperation, members upheld a request, brought by the Democratic Alliance, that International Relations and Cooperation Minister Ronald Lamola hand over a complete and unredacted copy of the Exchange of Notes signed between South Africa and the Republic of China (Taiwan) in 1997. The minister must now comply, fulfilling his duty to account to Parliament as the chief oversight body over the national executive.
Why does this matter to the broader public? The gazetted decision of 21 July 2025 stripped the Taipei Liaison Office in Pretoria of its formal recognition, downgraded its status, and ordered its relocation to Johannesburg. That decision, taken by the executive, affects South Africa’s trading relationship with Taiwan, including access to Taiwanese silicon semi-conductor chips, described in the DA’s submission as a preferred component in much of South African manufacturing. Ordinary businesses and consumers sit at the end of that supply chain, which is precisely why parliamentary scrutiny is not a procedural nicety but a matter of public consequence.
The committee’s reasoning was blunt. Legislators cannot deliberate on an executive decision if they cannot see the legislation or agreements that give it effect. Without the Exchange of Notes, members argued, the committee is blinded, unable to determine whether the Government Gazette of 21 July 2025 is valid or what diplomatic provisions already govern the South Africa-Taiwan relationship.
The document itself has a long history. Signed by former President Nelson Mandela in December 1997, it sets out the terms of South Africa’s working relationship with Taiwan after the Republic formally recognised the One China Policy in 1998. It has remained confidential ever since.
For the DA, the outcome is especially welcome because its own route to the document ran into a wall. A Promotion of Access to Information Act application submitted to DIRCO was declined by Minister Lamola in June 2026. The party has appealed that decision and awaits the minister’s response. It noted that the committee broadly agrees that a decision surrounding the TLO cannot be taken or deliberated on in a vacuum of existing legal mandate.
Meanwhile, the party has also contested the substance of the government’s move. It maintains that the gazette of 21 July 2025 represented an undiplomatic and legislatively abrupt change in the country’s terms of engagement with Taiwan, made without talks with the TLO about the status of the existing agreement and, it argues, in a suspicious vacuum of requisite diplomatic protocol. Minister Lamola’s assertion that downgrading the TLO aligns with international consensus was, in the DA’s view, patently false, with no such convention existing. The party pointed to fellow BRICS+ members Brazil and India, which value trade with Taiwan for growth and manufacturing and where Taiwanese foreign missions enjoy representation in the capital cities of Brasília and New Delhi respectively.
The wider stake is the public’s right to a foreign policy conducted under the rule of law rather than behind legislative secrecy. Transparency over a document that governs trade ties, and the accountability of a minister to the elected oversight body, serve citizens who depend on stable commercial relations and a predictable diplomatic framework. Further background on the parliamentary decision can be found at https://www.da.org.za/2026/10/parliament-upholds-das-request-for-the-sa-taiwan-exchange-of-notes.
The DA says it remains committed to the principles of the rule of law and non-alignment that govern South Africa’s foreign policy, and it welcomes incentives to make the Exchange of Notes public so that legislators can determine how this relationship proceeds, governed by law and not by political decisions taken in the dark. Whether the minister’s response to the pending PAIA appeal arrives before the document itself does remains an open question.