Understanding the landmark court ruling on apartheid-era crimes
In a landmark judgment against members of the apartheid security forces, the Johannesburg High Court has ruled that the state can prosecute apartheid-era crimes, because apartheid is a crime against humanity and there is no time bar on the prosecution of such crimes.
The case concerned the criminal trial of Christiaan Siebert Rorich and Tlhomedi Ephraim Mfalapitsa facing charges of kidnapping and murder as crimes against humanity, and the crime of apartheid specifically. They were members of the Apartheid Security Branch charged with the kidnapping and murder in 1982 of the 'Cosas 4' – teenagers Eustice 'Bimbo' Madikela, Peter 'Ntshingo' Matabane, Fanyana Nhlapo and Zandisile Musi – who were anti-apartheid activists and members of the Congress of South African Students (Cosas).
The prosecution of these crimes, however, was only initiated in democratic South Africa nearly 40 years later – in 2021.
The accused made two main legal arguments. First, they argued that crimes against humanity only became offences in South Africa in August 2022 after the country ratified the Rome Statute and passed legislation to this effect. They argued therefore that these acts were not regarded as crimes in South African law at the time they took place.
In terms of the Constitution, an accused has a right to a fair trial which includes the right not to be prosecuted for an act that was not a crime at the time it took place.
They also argued that even if it were a crime, the power to prosecute lapsed after 20 years and to prosecute them 40 years later would violate their right to a fair trial. Finally, they argued that there had been political interference in their prosecution and that the charges were brought too late which denied them a right to a speedy trial without undue delay.
The National Prosecuting Authority and the Legal Resources Centre, which was admitted as a friend of the court, argued that crimes against humanity including apartheid are a part of customary international law and that the Constitution requires courts to abide by international law.
They said crimes against humanity originate from the prosecution of Nazi generals during the Nuremberg Trials after World War 2 and have become part of international law since then. They argued that apartheid is a crime against humanity because it involved inhumane acts committed as part of a widespread and systematic campaign against black civilians and opponents of the regime. The charges against Rorich and Mfalapitsa related to acts committed in furtherance of this objective, they said.
The main questions the court had to consider were:
Whether apartheid was a crime against humanity and thus a crime at the time the acts were committed; and
Whether any attempt to prosecute such crimes had an expiry date.
In his ruling on 14 April, Judge Dario Dosio noted that the Constitution explains that customary international law is automatically law in South Africa unless it is inconsistent with the Constitution. This means it is not necessary for South Africa to have formally signed and ratified a treaty concerning that law, nor is it necessary for Parliament to pass legislation to this effect. This approach had been confirmed by the Constitutional Court on several occasions, he said.
Turning to apartheid, the judge defined it as a system of racial segregation and discrimination which was designed to maintain the domination of the white minority over the black majority. He pointed out that enemies of the state had been subjected to imprisonment, kidnapping, torture, police brutality and assassinations. The United Nations General Assembly had declared apartheid a crime against humanity in 1966. More importantly, in 1973, the Apartheid Convention came into effect – an international treaty which criminalised apartheid and sought its suppression and punishment worldwide.
In democratic South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission confirmed that apartheid was a crime against humanity. The judge concluded that apartheid had been a crime against humanity for at least 79 years.
Referring to decisions of the Constitutional Court, Judge Dosio said that it had been accepted that crimes against humanity under customary international law can be prosecuted in terms of the Constitution. Based on this logic, the court found that these constitutional provisions provided a pathway for the prosecution of crimes against humanity which occurred in South Africa before 1994.
Turning to the question of whether there is a time bar date for prosecutions, he found that there was not.
He referred to the Convention on Statutory Limitations which set out that there are no statutory limitations (expiry dates) on the prosecution of crimes against humanity. This convention dates from the aftermath of World War 2 when war criminals during the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals raised such arguments.
The judge said that in other countries the courts had made a similar finding, that there was no expiry date for prosecution for crimes against humanity. These included Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, Spain, the US, Uganda and Uruguay. The Inter-American Court had come to the same conclusion.
As a result, though South Africa is not a signatory to the Convention on Statutory Limitations, the judge found there can be no time bar for the prosecution of crimes against humanity committed in South Africa. Based on these findings he found no violation of the accused's right to a fair trial.
Turning to the question of political interference and undue delay in the prosecution, the judge noted that it was regrettable that the National Prosecuting Authority had taken so long to prosecute apartheid-era crimes referred to it by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Despite this, he said, the interests of justice still required the prosecution of such crimes, given their gravity and impact on South African society both in the past and the present.
The judgment paves the way for the prosecution of hundreds of apartheid-era crimes which were referred to prosecution by the commission. DM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Macua demands urgent withdrawal of the Mineral Resources Development Bill
Members of the Mining Affected Communities United in Action (Macua) gathered outside the offices of the Mineral and Resources, in Pretoria, to make submission against the proposed Mineral Resources Development Bill. Image: Supplied The Mining Affected Communities United in Action (Macua) has called for the withdrawal of the current proposed Mineral Resources Development Bill, saying it should be restructured and rebuilt with the people at the centre. The organisation held a protest in five provincial offices of the Mineral and Resources across the country on Wednesday, to make submissions opposing the draft bill. The provinces include Pretoria (Gauteng), Klerksdorp (North West), Emalahleni (Mpumalanga), Polokwane (Limpopo), and Welkom in the Free State. The Bill was published for public comment on May 20, 2025, with a submission deadline of August 13, 2025. It aims to ensure policy and regulatory certainty, enhance investor confidence, reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies, and improve turnaround times for mining rights, permits, and regulatory approvals, as well as formally recognise artisanal mining and advance transformation in the mining sector. However, in its submission, Macua said this is no milestone for those who bear the brunt of mining's footprint, those who live with the dust, displacement, environmental degradation, and broken promises. The organisation said the Bill fails to deliver justice, equity, or transformation. The submission document stated that despite extensive, legally grounded submissions from Macua, the MPRDA Coalition, Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS), and other civil society partners, including constitutional benchmarks, legislative proposals, and community-authored clauses, core inputs have been ignored, and the result is a Bill that not only omits the tenets of post-apartheid justice but also reconfigures the regulatory architecture to entrench exclusion under the guise of reform. 'Nowhere is this betrayal more evident than in the Bill's refusal to enshrine Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for communities residing on communal and customary land. The Constitution, IPILRA (Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act), and landmark rulings such as Maledu and Baleni affirm that land rights holders must provide informed consent, not merely be 'consulted', before mining can proceed,' said Macua, adding that the Bill entrenches a weak and discretionary consultation model that lacks enforceability. 'Worse, it omits any recognition of customary governance systems or collective land rights, ignoring the lived realities of rural, informal, and traditional communities,' the organisation said. Independent Media tried to get a comment from the Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources, but spokesperson Johannes Mokobane said he was in the meeting and will revert. The submission also stated that this is not a legislative oversight, but a deliberate political choice and one that aligns with the interests of extractive capital rather than those of historically dispossessed communities. Macua said this paves the way for forced removals, land dispossession, and State-sanctioned displacement without community control. Macua added that the Bill was not based on meaningful public consultation and it has ignored the differential impact of mining on women and landless people, adding that it offers no impact analysis of removing community protections. 'Using such a shallow and exclusionary process as the evidentiary foundation of the law is indefensible.' The submission document stated that the Bill provides no framework for displacement, resettlement or restitution. Despite years of documented abuses, including relocations without compensation, dispossession of burial sites, and community fragmentation, the Bill sidesteps the issue entirely. 'This silence perpetuates spatial injustice, especially in the context of the government's Critical Minerals Strategy, which targets new zones for extraction in areas like the Waterberg, Sekhukhune, and Pondoland without safeguards,' said Macua. The organisation said it proposed statutory protections against forced removal, minimum compensation standards, as well as environmental and social planning obligations tied to land tenure, but all were ignored. Macua said the Bill introduces a new artisanal mining permit under Section 27A, but it is a deeply flawed and exclusionary instrument that fails to reflect the realities of informal mining communities or support meaningful transformation. According to Macua, while the Bill appears to empower the minister to identify areas for artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM), this authority is purely discretionary and is not accompanied by any procedural requirements, designation criteria, or support structures. The organisation said there is no legal obligation to map, consult, or designate zones where ASM can operate lawfully and sustainably.
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
EFF backs government in rejecting US State Department's human rights report
EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo says the US is hypocritical in their report on human rights. Image: File The EFF and the South African government have come together to dismiss the recent United States State Department Human Rights Report, calling out the US for its hypocrisy on human rights issues. The report claimed that South Africa's human rights record has "significantly worsened," and documented several instances of arbitrary or unlawful killings committed by the government or its agents. But both the EFF and government claim this assessment is flawed and biased. It also claimed that the EFF incited violence against Afrikaner farmers, claiming that the party achieved this by reintroducing the contentious song 'Kill the Boer' song at its gatherings and through other acts of incitement. The report said that a provincial police commissioner confirmed in July that police had fatally shot at least 40 criminal suspects in shoot-outs since April. A January report from the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) was also referenced. This report detailed the 2021 unrest in KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng, which led to 337 deaths and 3,400 arrests. However, both the EFF and the the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) criticised the US report for applying double standard on human rights. The EFF pointed out that the US has a history of using human rights narratives to justify sanctions, isolation, and even military aggression against other nations. "It is the same tactic used in Iraq under the lies of 'weapons of mass destruction', which left over a million people dead while US corporations looted oil fields,' EFF spokesperson Sinawo Thambo said. "The US has no moral standing to lecture any nation on human rights. This is a country that cages migrant children in detention centers; that has rolled back reproductive rights and stripped millions of women of the freedom to control their bodies," The party also criticised the report for selectively presenting incidents of police brutality while ignoring the broader context of South Africa's struggle against violent crime. "These cases, picked from our broader struggle against violent crime, are inflated to serve Washington's narrative that our nation is unfit to govern itself," the EFF said. 'This report was clearly crafted to smear South Africa for daring to assert its sovereignty, reclaim its land, and stand in solidarity with the oppressed peoples of the world, particularly the people of Palestine,' Thambo said. The Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation's spokesperson Chrispin Phiri also expressed profound disappointment with the report, describing it as "inaccurate and deeply flawed." Phiri said the report's reliance on contextual information and discredited accounts is highly concerning. "The report cites an incident involving the deaths of farm workers and, despite the matter being actively adjudicated by our independent judiciary, misleadingly presents it as an extrajudicial killing," Phiri explained. The government noted that South Africa operates a transparent system where information is freely available from law enforcement agencies and Chapter 9 institutions, which are constitutionally mandated to protect and advance human rights. The government also noted the irony that the US, having exited the UN Human Rights Council, would seek to produce one-sided fact-free reports without any due process or engagement. "This is particularly striking given the significant and documented concerns about human rights within the United States, including the treatment of refugees and breaches in due process by its agencies, such as ICE," the government said. "In contrast to the US report, the UN Human Rights Office in Geneva has praised South Africa's Land Expropriation Act, signed into law by President Cyril Ramaphosa, as a "critical step in addressing the country's racially imbalanced land ownership". This recognition underscores the integrity of South Africa's legislative processes aimed at rectifying historical injustices in a constitutional and human-rights-based manner,' Phiri said.
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
Complicity, Silence, Historical Amnesia: Universities and the Genocide in Gaza
British-Cypriot coach Louis Allan, 33, sits atop an olive tree on a main road in Nicosia on May 7, 2025, as he continues a week-long silent sit-in and hunger strike in support of Palestinians in Gaza and calling for an end to the war between Israel and Hamas. University of Pretoria Staff For Palestine (UPS4Palestine) As an academic collective from the University of Pretoria, we offer the following reflections on the unfolding genocide of Palestinians in Gaza as a contribution to a growing number of South African academic voices against the genocide. The increased horrors faced by the Palestinian people in Gaza since October 7, 2023, and especially from March 2025, with the enforcement of a total siege and blockade of all humanitarian aid (barring the trickle that Israel permits), are on an unimaginable scale. It has been confirmed that Israel has directly killed more than 58,000 Palestinians in Gaza since October 2023, more than 17,000 of them children, and has carried out daily 'aid' massacres of Palestinians who are waiting for food and water at distribution points since instituting a total aid blockade in March 2025. With thousands of bodies still buried under the rubble, and many more dying of hunger and preventable diseases, due to the destruction of hospitals and worsening living conditions, some have estimated the real death toll in Gaza to be far higher. According to the United Nations, the illegal and immoral weaponization of food has led to the death of at least 70 Palestinian children from malnutrition. Further, in the West Bank, Israel has killed 1,000 Palestinians since October 7, 2023. It has also ramped up the incarceration of Palestinians, with more than 10,000 detained in its torture dungeons by April 2025. Furthermore, the ongoing attacks on Palestinian children have resulted in about 3,000 children having amputations as a result of traumatic force injuries, burns, and infection. This has resulted in thousands of children with a new disability facing uncertain futures. Starving and quarantined within a desolate strip of land, denied basic human rights and continually brutalised by the Israeli Defence Force, the plight of Palestinians in Gaza is a stain on the human conscience, especially the leading Western nations and leaders of the world, who have sacrificed international law and human rights in favour of their imperialist interests in West Asia, as represented by Israel. Effectively, the genocide in Gaza reveals the persistence of the global division of humanity produced and maintained by centuries of European colonialism. It is a genocide transmitted in real time, watched by millions of outraged people around the world and by complicit leaders, journalists, academics, and religious figures, especially in the West and in the Arab world. The Palestinian genocide that has been unfolding for the last 20 months has shown up the fallacy of the international rule of law - permitting Israel the right to carry out this genocide in the full glare of world attention; and also turning a blind eye to Israeli occupation, violent settler colonialism and the denial of Palestinian human rights and sovereignty since Israel's official establishment in 1948. The increasing evidence of the genocide in Gaza, which includes scholasticide, has not sufficiently galvanised many institutions, such as universities, including many in South Africa. While a few South African universities have taken a brave stand, such as the University of Fort Hare and Nelson Mandela University, and thereby risked not only public opprobrium from sectors of South African society but also much-needed funding, other universities blithely carry on 'with business as usual'. Debates in some institutions invariably devolve into spurious and disingenuous comparisons with atrocities in other parts of the world – the by-now common 'whataboutism' – to even more fallacious arguments about a complex situation, two-sidedism, 'not our problem', and the 'hand-wringing, what can we do' argument. The global solidarity we garnered in our struggle against apartheid is a long-distant memory for some. For others who were quite comfortable with apartheid, the international cultural, academic, sports, and economic boycott against apartheid South Africa was an outrage. For such South Africans, a similar outrage should not be perpetrated against Israel, a historical ally of the apartheid government. The inaction and 'apolitical neutrality' of historically white universities, which were bastions and intellectual playgrounds of apartheid, is particularly shameful and is indicative of the superficiality of transformation in these institutions as well as the lack of a genuine commitment to the pursuit of justice. While university leaders spout empty rhetoric about transformation, the pursuit of justice, and responsiveness to local and global issues, their inaction is more telling of their complicity. Erasure through violence and destruction of both tangible and intangible traces of place and belonging, and denial of sovereignty and personhood are core elements of settler colonialism, whether in the Americas, Australia, Africa, or Palestine. These core elements are inextricably linked to race and ethnicity. Thus, as early as 1917, the discourse of erasure and denial of sovereignty and personhood is already clearly evident in the Balfour Declaration, which not only favoured 'the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people', but also posited the Palestinians as the 'other' in contradistinction to the Jewish people. Historian Avi Shlaim argues that the genocide in Gaza is a 'direct result of the Balfour Declaration'. It set in motion the colonisation of historic Palestine and the systemic erasure of native Palestinians. Whereas Jews constituted only 10% of the population and owned a meagre two per cent of the land by 1917, the so-called British Mandate facilitated the mass invasion of mainly European Jews into Palestine and the displacement of Palestinians. This freed up land for Jewish settlements in historic Palestine to create the state of Israel. This process of colonisation continues to this day, and explains why Britain, despite mass support from its citizens for the national liberation of Palestine, has provided unconditional support to Israel in the commission of the genocide in Gaza since October 2023. Defined by racism, oppression, and brutal violence, the Zionist project in Israel has consistently and continually sought to erase the Palestinian presence in its onward march to 'Greater Israel'. This march to 'Greater Israel' has gathered a violent pace in the past 20 months. Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, Palestinian and foreign aid workers, predominantly Palestinian journalists, medical personnel, teachers, and academics, children, and the old are all cannon fodder to the Israeli march to 'Greater Israel'. The UN Genocide Convention defines genocide as 'any of the following acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group' by any means of the following actions: Killing members of the group Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and Forcibly transferring children of one group to another. Israeli actions in Gaza constitute a textbook case of genocide, according to Holocaust scholar, Raz Segal. Yet, like in the case of the genocides of the Harara, Herero, and the San, Western political elites, corporate media, and academics refute and deny the evidence. In the case of Gaza, the denial is particularly startling as the evidence is transmitted daily on social media platforms and independent media. The complicity of the so-called 'democratic free' world of the West is monstrously on display.
