Ramaphosa appoints Judge Sisi Khampepe to probe decades of apartheid-era justice delays
At the first sitting of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in East London in April 1996, chairman Archbishop Desmond Tutu and deputy chairman Alex Boraine hear evidence from the family of the Cradock Four, Mathew Goniwe, Fort Calata, Sparrow Mkonto and Sicelo Mhlauli, who were tortured and murdered by the apartheid state's security police while on their way home from a meeting on the night of June 27, 1985. South Africa has failed to deliver justice for the very victims whose voices were courageously amplified during the TRC process, says the writer.
Image: Independent Media Archives
President Cyril Ramaphosa has appointed retired Constitutional Court Judge Sisi Khampepe to chair the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Inquiry into prosecutorial and investigation delays into apartheid era crimes.
Khampepe will be assisted by retired Judge President Frans Diale Kgomo and Adv Andrea Gabriel SC.
The commission will cover the period from 2003 to the present.
Ramaphosa has signed a proclamation for the establishment of a judicial commission of inquiry to determine whether attempts were made to prevent the investigation and prosecution of apartheid-era crimes.
In a statement by the presidency, the establishment of the commission of inquiry is part of an agreement reached in settlement discussions in a court application brought by families of victims of apartheid-era crimes.
Ramaphosa said: 'For many years, there have been allegations of interference in these cases. This alleged interference is seen as the cause of an unacceptable delay in the investigation and prosecution of brutal crimes committed under apartheid. This has caused the families of victims great anguish and frustration.
'All affected families – and indeed all South Africans – deserve closure and justice. A commission of inquiry with broad and comprehensive terms of reference is an opportunity to establish the truth and provide guidance on any further action that needs to be taken.'
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ramaphosa said the commission will inquire into, make findings, report on and make recommendations on: Were there any efforts to stop SAPS or the NPA from investigating TRC cases? Who made these efforts, and why? Did any SAPS or NPA members improperly cooperate with those trying to influence or pressure them? Should the state take action—like more investigations or prosecutions—against anyone who broke the law? Should any person receive constitutional damages, and if so, how much?
Victims and their families with a vested interest in TRC cases, including those involved in the current legal proceedings, are among the key stakeholders.
The Commission of Inquiry, established by agreement between the families and the government, has six months to complete its work and must submit its report within 60 days thereafter.
While both sides agreed to the commission's formation, unresolved issues remain—the government sees them as commission matters, while families seek court adjudication.
As the commission began its work, the government welcomed the NPA and SAPS's commitment to investigating and prosecuting unresolved TRC cases, with dedicated resources already in place for priority matters.
Ramaphosa emphasised the importance of holding those who committed apartheid-era crimes without amnesty accountable and expressed hope that the inquiry would help uncover the truth and bring closure to a painful chapter in the nation's history.
kamogelo.moichela@iol.co.za
IOL Politics
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
Urgent petition launched in South Africa to tackle soaring food prices
Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity Group (PMBEJD) has been mootoring food prices for many years Image: Armand Hough: Independent Newspapers A nationwide petition has been launched calling on the government and retailers to intervene to bring down rising food prices as South Africans are facing a daily battle to feed their families. The action has been brought by United Against Hunger (UAH), which hopes to collect about 100,000 signatures as part of its campaign to reduce food prices. The organisation stated that many families are no longer able to feed themselves, and children are starving. The petition has also been linked with door-to-door campaigns, with affiliates of the union visiting homes to collect signatures and brief residents on the issues of hunger and malnutrition among children. The petition was launched as part of the World Hunger campaigns. Mark Heywood, the leader of UAH, stated that the petition aims to encourage large retailers making significant profits to respond to the moral needs of their customers or to get the government involved in regulating food prices. "The petition is going slower than we had hoped, but we are beginning to engage communities, going door to door in KwaZulu-Natal. Abahlali BaseMjondolo (the shack dwellers' movement) is visiting homes, collecting signatures, and engaging with communities on issues of malnutrition," he said. The 2024 General Household Survey, which was released last week revealed that nearly 14 million South Africans, equivalent to almost a quarter of all households, faced daily hunger last year. The data showed that 22.2% of households reported inadequate or severely inadequate access to food, with the Northern Cape (34.3%), Eastern Cape (31.3%), Mpumalanga (30.4%), and KwaZulu-Natal (23.9%) the most affected provinces. Children are particularly vulnerable. Malnutrition significantly impairs physical and cognitive development, increasing mortality risks and undermining long-term educational and economic outcomes. Heywood said: 'By the age of five, 29% of children have experienced malnutrition and are stunted as a result of not having sufficient food. We know that there are several causes of hunger, and they are complex, but one of the biggest causes is the prices and profiteering off essential foodstuffs." He added that the organisation believes, based on studies by universities, that if food could be made available to poorer people, malnutrition could be significantly reduced. He said they wrote to the CEO of one of the major food stores, urging the company to reduce prices on essential food items for children developing in the early stages of their lives. He emphasised that big companies in the retail sector can afford to reduce prices and are currently making huge profits. "Everyone has a right to sufficient food; that is a constitutional right. If companies that set high food prices are violating the realisation of those rights, then we say the government must regulate not just the quality of food but also the affordability of food to ensure that people in this country do not go hungry. Hunger is a human rights violation; it is not something that we should subject people to because our country produces a surplus of food," he said. Heywood suggested several interventions that can be undertaken, including: Pass legislation to prevent food waste. Reduce food prices Introduce legislation to prevent food wastage Set up a National Food Security and Nutrition Council and finalise the National Plan on Food Security and Nutrition in consultation with communities. Mervyn Abrahams, director of the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity Group, stated that the calls for food prices to be reviewed are genuine. The group has been assessing food affordability for the past few years. "As we have demonstrated before through our Household Affordability Index, food prices continue to rise both on a monthly and annual basis, making it difficult each and every day for many families, especially those in the low-income bracket, to buy essential food items." He added, "We have been consistent in calling for transparency in the food ecosystem primarily out of concern that big business is driven by the sole desire to make profit. This concern arises from an appreciation that when profits are prioritised above everything else, families find themselves having to make difficult choices and compromises when it comes to buying food because of high prices."
eNCA
4 hours ago
- eNCA
The battle for the AmaZulu throne reaches Supreme Court of Appeal
BLOEMFONTEIN - After two days of intensive legal arguments in Bloemfontein, from 28 to 29 May 2025, five Supreme Court of Appeal judges will now determine whether President Cyril Ramaphosa's recognition of Misuzulu as King of the AmaZulu Nation in March 2022 was right and proper. The case represents more than four years of legal battles that have tested the boundaries between customary law and constitutional governance in South Africa. The death of Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi in September 2023 removed a key figure who had championed King Misuzulu's succession. The Supreme Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in one of South Africa's most significant constitutional and customary law cases. It's left King Misuzulu kaZwelithini in a precarious position within the AmaZulu Royal House. After four years of bitter legal battles that have exposed deep divisions within the royal family and raised fundamental questions about the intersection of traditional customs and constitutional governance in democratic South Africa. The case has significant implications beyond the Zulu kingdom, as the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act, which governs the recognition of traditional leaders, has come under intense scrutiny throughout these proceedings. The legal battle stems from a succession crisis that began on 12 March, 2021, when King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu died from COVID-19 complications. The pivotal moment came on 14 May, 2021, when around 200 members of the AmaZulu Royal family gathered at KwaNongoma for what supporters described as a legitimate identification meeting, chaired by the traditional prime minister, late Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi. The meeting identified Prince Misuzulu as the successor to the throne. President Ramaphosa officially recognised King Misuzulu on 16 March, 2022, under Section 8(3)(a) and (b) of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act, following consultations with the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and the Premier of KwaZulu-Natal. King Misuzulu subsequently underwent the traditional Ukungena Esibayeni ceremony at the KwaKhangelamankengane Royal Palace in October 2022. However, Prince Mbonisi Zulu, the king's uncle, and Prince Simakade Zulu, the late king's other son chose to challenge the recognition. On 15 December 2023, Judge Norman Davis of the High Court in Pretoria delivered a bombshell ruling, setting aside Ramaphosa's recognition of King Misuzulu. He found that the president had failed to follow due process by not appointing an investigative committee to address disputes within the royal family. In the Supreme Court of Appeal, President Ramaphosa's legal team, led by Senior Counsel Morumo Moerane, argued that the recognition was lawful and fully compliant with the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act. "The president did not elect the king; he simply confirmed the one who was already identified," Moerane told the court. "We respectfully submit that the president's recognition decision was lawful, rational, and fully compliant with the act," he added. King Misuzulu's representatives, led by Advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, emphasised that the identification process had already been validated by Acting Judge President Isaac Madondo in March 2022 – a ruling that was never appealed or set aside. "The rule of law demands an end to this matter," Ngcukaitobi insisted, arguing that the same issues cannot be relitigated indefinitely. However, Prince Mbonisi's legal team, represented by Advocate Thabani Masuku SC, maintained that the 14 May, 2021 meeting was fundamentally flawed. "The meeting was due to serve as a mourning ritual and not a forum during which the new king should be identified," Maskuku argued. "Custom was not followed as the Royal Family was not the one to choose the new king," he contended. Prince Simakade's representatives, led by Advocate Alan Dodson SC, argued that he is the rightful heir as the eldest son and called for a fresh identification process. The death of Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi in September 2023 removed a key figure who had championed King Misuzulu's succession. Buthelezi served as traditional prime minister to the Zulu royal family from 1954 until his death. He'd played a crucial role in the controversial May 2021 identification process. The case represents more than four years of legal battles that have tested the boundaries between customary law and constitutional governance in South Africa. The outcome will likely establish important precedents for the way disputes within traditional leadership structures are resolved and the extent of state intervention in customary succession processes. In an effort to restore unity, King Misuzulu appointed Prince Zuzifa Buthelezi as chairperson of the royal council in April 2025. As of 1 June 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal has provided no timeline for delivering its judgment. King Misuzulu remains on the throne pending the outcome, with his supporters expressing confidence that the court will uphold his legitimacy. Whatever the outcome, the case has highlighted the need for clearer procedures and better integration between customary succession practices and state recognition processes in South Africa's constitutional framework. The eventual judgment will determine not just King Misuzulu's fate, but could reshape the way traditional succession disputes are handled across South Africa's diverse cultural landscape. by Nkateko Muloiwa
The Star
11 hours ago
- The Star
Ramaphosa asks Constitutional Court to overturn NHI judgment
President Cyril Ramaphosa has appealed to the Constitutional Court in a bid to overturn a recent Gauteng High Court ruling that challenged the legality of his decision to sign the National Health Insurance (NHI) Bill into law. The controversial bill, signed by Ramaphosa in May 2024, is a cornerstone of the government's proposed overhaul of South Africa's healthcare system, aiming to establish universal health coverage for all citizens. However, the High Court in Pretoria ruled shortly afterwards that Ramaphosa's assent to the bill could be subject to judicial review — a finding that raised constitutional and procedural concerns. The court also ordered the president to provide a full record of all documentation and deliberations that informed his decision to approve the legislation. This move sparked criticism from legal and political commentators who viewed it as a significant intrusion into executive authority. Now, Ramaphosa is asking the Constitutional Court — South Africa's highest legal authority on constitutional matters — to review and set aside the High Court's judgment. In his application, the president contends that the lower court may have overstepped its bounds, arguing that it infringed on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. According to court papers filed by Ramaphosa, the High Court ruling 'undermines the functioning of the executive' and grants the judiciary undue influence over matters that, by design, fall within the president's discretion. He maintains that while all actions of public office bear scrutiny, the power to sign legislation into law lies squarely with the executive and must be exercised without judicial interference unless a direct constitutional violation is evident. The legal dispute unfolds amid intense national debate over the NHI, which has drawn sharp reactions from across the political spectrum. Supporters argue that the legislation is necessary to address systemic inequality in access to healthcare, while critics — including major stakeholders in the private healthcare industry — warn that the bill is vague, fiscally unsustainable, and potentially unconstitutional. The High Court's ruling added a new layer of complexity to the NHI saga, as it suggested the president's role in enacting legislation is not immune from legal challenge if the process appears flawed. Some constitutional scholars noted that the court's directive to produce the 'record of decision' implies that judicial oversight could extend into executive reasoning, a move with far-reaching implications. Legal experts say the outcome of Ramaphosa's appeal could set an important precedent for the limits of presidential authority and the role of the judiciary in legislative processes. If the Constitutional Court agrees to hear the matter, its judgment will have significant consequences not only for the future of the NHI but also for the balance of power between branches of government.
