Understanding the court ruling on apartheid-era 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, 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 (LRC) 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 II 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 that 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 UN 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 II when war criminals during the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals raised such arguments.
The judge said 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 United States, 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 last question on political interference and undue delay in the prosecution, the Judge noted that it was regrettable that the NPA had taken so long to prosecute apartheid-era crimes referred to it by the TRC. 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 present.
The judgment paves the way for the prosecution of hundreds of apartheid-era crimes which were referred to prosecution by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
This article first appeared on GroundUp. Read the original article here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Unfazed: South Africa's stance on US visa policies impacting Zimbabwe
US President Donald Trump continues to disrupt global diplomacy after a recent visa ban imposed on Zimbabwe. Image: Picture: Evan Vucci/AP The South African government seems unaffected by the recent US visa ban imposed by the embassy in Harare, Zimbabwe, despite President Donald Trump's ongoing disruptions to global diplomacy through tariff increases and immigration policies. The US has suspended all routine immigrant and non-immigrant visa services to Zimbabwe due to concerns over misuse and overstays, although other visa types remain unaffected. Although South Africa was exempt from new Trump visa restrictions on SADC countries, a new policy has been implemented for Malawi and Zambia. Citizens of these nations are now required to pay a bond of $5 000 (R88 656) to $15 000 (R265 967) to travel to the US. Additionally, the citizens are required to use one of three airports—Boston's Logan International, New York's JFK International, or Dulles International near Washington D.C.—for both arrival and departure. 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 ✕ When asked whether South African citizens should be worried, Department of International Relations and Cooperation (Dirco) spokesperson Chrispin Phiri gave a brief response: "We do not provide commentary on other countries' visa regimes, and this is our general position, it's not specific to the US." A senior government official, however, downplayed the likelihood of South Africans being affected by the US visa restrictions. "Remember Trump is only in our case because of the International Court of Justice case against Israel and our involvement in BRICS. Nothing more and nothing less," the official said. "South Africans visiting the US are mostly professionals who either go for business or a holiday. We seldom have citizens wanting to immigrate to the should have nothing to worry about,' he said. The US embassy explained that the reasons for the restrictions was because the administration was working to prevent visa overstay and misuse as part of national security. "The Trump administration is protecting our nation and citizens by upholding the highest standards of national security and public safety through our visa process," the embassy said. "We are always working to prevent visa overstay and misuse." In June, the US imposed travel bans on citizens from 12 countries, with seven of them located in Africa. Additionally, heightened restrictions were applied to seven other nations, three of which are African. The US has issued a demand to 36 countries, predominantly in Africa, to enhance their traveler vetting procedures. Failure to comply could result in a ban on their citizens visiting the US. International Relations analyst Rejoice Ngwenya said it was unfortunate that the US had an obsession with immigration issues. "All democratic countries must encourage international country movements. However it is incumbent upon citizens that they don't abuse regulations. But one thing to acknowledge in terms of implementation of immigration laws globally is not to interfere and dissuade inter country movements of students because knowledge sharing and education is a universal right,' Ngwenya said.
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Sanction Rosatom and send clear signal that occupation of nuclear plants will not be tolerated
The occupation by Russia of Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) is the first instance in history where a nuclear power plant has been militarily occupied and operated for over three years during active warfare. The deadline that US President Donald Trump had established for Russia to start a ceasefire, stop its aggression against Ukraine, or otherwise face the threat of sanctions was 8 August 2025. This was the sixth time that Trump had demanded that Vladimir Putin stop the war; however, Putin had previously declined such offers. The day passed uneventfully. During the 11 years of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, numerous peace initiatives have emerged, including the African Peace Mission. But analysts see little sign that Putin is prepared to abandon his intention to take control of Ukraine. In 2022, Russia declared in its Constitution that four Ukrainian regions were part of its territory, but failed to fully take over any of them militarily. Now Putin would have to amend the Russian constitution to halt the aggression at the current frontline — a highly risky political move that could bring about the end of his political power. Thus, he is demanding that Ukrainians leave their homes 'voluntarily' because the Russian army failed to take these territories by force. In July this year, Russia launched more than 6,000 drones and fired dozens of missiles targeting Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities, killing civilians far from the frontline. Just in the first half of this year, 6,754 civilians have been killed or injured, according to the UN. The war remains intense, and no one is safe in Ukraine. Nevertheless, hopes are high again for 15 August, when Trump is expected to meet with Putin in Alaska, the territory the US once bought from Russia. President Cyril Ramaphosa, who has previously spoken in support of Ukraine's territorial integrity, also spoke with both the Russian and Ukrainian presidents last week, raising expectations that a ceasefire may be possible. Sanctions The expectations are that Trump can speak from a position of strength and threaten sanctions. However, given Russia's negligible trade with the US, what sanctions could Trump introduce that would be meaningful? The Russian state budget used to receive about 50% of its revenue from oil and gas exports; this had already dropped to 30% in 2024. Further sanctions could seriously undermine the Kremlin's ability to fund the war, which is expensive to run. In 2025, a record 40% of Russia's state budget has been allocated to defence and security. Another 6%-10% of revenue comes from the Russian state agency Rosatom, which serves a dual role: developing civilian nuclear reactors and acting as a strategic arm of the Kremlin's military sector by producing parts for non-nuclear weapons and other defence technologies. Rosatom's subsidiaries supply components to Russia's military-industrial complex, including drone technologies. Some of these facilities, such as the drone production factory in Alabuga, have been accused by the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime of recruiting African women aged 18 to 22 to drone production under allegedly false promises of a 'work-study programme'. Rosatom, whose regional office has operated in South Africa since 2012, plays a key role in the military occupation of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, Europe's largest nuclear power plant, seized by Russian military forces in March 2022 and turned into a geopolitical hostage. The occupation of the plant is the first instance in history where a nuclear power plant has been militarily occupied and has been operated for more than three years during active warfare. Rosatom plays a key role in this precedent. The violations of the International Atomic Energy Agency's seven nuclear safety pillars — the physical integrity of facilities, operability of safety systems, autonomy of staff decision-making, secure off-site power, uninterrupted logistics, effective radiation monitoring and reliable communication with regulators — have already been documented at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. The detailed analysis of these violations and what they mean for the African continent is presented in the Policy Brief on Nuclear Safety during Military Invasion, presented ahead of the African Union's Mid-Year Coordination Meeting in Accra in July 2024. The brief presents a comprehensive case study of nuclear vulnerability during wartime and calls for urgent action by African countries, including South Africa, to prevent similar situations on the continent. However, the challenges at the occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant go beyond the risk of physical damage to the facility. In May 2025, the International Labour Organization (ILO) reported that 13 Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant employees had been abducted, including three cases this year. The whereabouts of at least one detained worker remains unknown. The organisation also documented forced labour, coerced union membership and serious occupational safety risks for staff. Pressure to sign contracts More than 40 documented witness accounts by human rights organisations such as Truth Hounds suggest that since March 2022, Rosatom experts were fully aware of the pressure that the military personnel were putting on the nuclear operators to sign contracts with Rosatom. They were aware of interrogations, detentions, torture, psychological coercion and decisions to deny shift rotations. This is not a technical dispute. It is a systematic breach of international humanitarian law and nuclear safety norms, and of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. International mechanisms such as the UN have been powerless in the face of the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant occupation. In July 2024, the UN passed a resolution — 'Safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant' — condemning the Russian occupation of the plant and calling for the immediate withdrawal of military forces to ensure global nuclear safety. Many African countries supported this resolution, recognising the threat to international peace posed by the militarisation of a civilian nuclear site. In addition, 13 African states — including Ghana, Kenya, and Zambia — endorsed the Peace Summit Communiqué in Switzerland, affirming Ukraine's sovereign control over its nuclear sites. However, these international documents lack binding power. Torture Instead, sanctions or a refusal to cooperate with organisations that support torture could reduce the funding available for the war. Such sanctions can be implemented by any country that aims to promote human rights and nuclear safety. South Africa co-chairs the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Ukraine is one of the few countries that gave up its nuclear weapons, despite holding the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal prior to 1994. That year, it voluntarily disarmed, joined the Non-Proliferation Treaty, accepted International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards, and allowed international inspections. In return, the US, the UK and Russia committed to respecting and protecting Ukraine's borders and sovereignty. The silence and acceptance of military risks, and the violations of international labour practices, corporate responsibilities and human rights, show why governments that want to protect their population must act — not in reaction to a European war, but in defence of their own nuclear future. DM Dzvinka Kachur is with the Ukrainian Association of South Africa. Volodymyr Lakomov and Ilko Kucheriv are with the Democratic Initiatives Foundation.
Daily Maverick
3 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
After the Bell: Manipulating the rand — really?
There are times in life when you are so desperate to find someone else to blame for your situation that you just lash out. And you grab any chance to blame someone else. I sometimes wonder if that feeling, that horrible desperation, the feeling that our currency is so weak, is behind the very strange story about claims that a group of 28 banks, both South African and foreign, manipulated the rand. The backstory is long and complicated, but essentially, the Competition Commission says it has evidence that traders working for the banks were part of a single conspiracy. There is talk of 'rand-pairs' and secret chats on Bloomberg terminals – even phone conversations and secret agreements. Considering that the phrase 'rand-pair' is second only to watching golf in making my eyes feel somewhat weighted, it's easy to understand how this thing has such political power. It's because, like the chap on par-who-gives-a-monkey's, almost all of us have no cooking clue what is going on. And the moment I hear phrases like 'manipulation' or 'hedge' or 'rand-currency-pair', I immediately get the feeling you get when someone is trying to sell you car insurance. You just know you're being screwed. But in fact, as former Daily Maverick journalist Ray Mahlaka once clearly explained, the currency market is just too big for it to have any impact on you. Around $50-billion (about R882-billion) is traded every day. And while some of the banks involved are big, none are big enough to have played that particular game. Now obviously, some people did play games with the currency. Absa was the first to announce that it had discovered two of its traders were doing this. It told the regulators and suspended them. Standard Chartered and CitiBank have also admitted that some of their people were guilty. They've paid a fine and moved on with their lives. But some of the other banks are fighting on. As Business Live reported this morning, the Constitutional Court is finally expected to put all of this to bed one way or another in a four-day hearing next week. One hopes the coffee machine at Constitution Hill can do double-time. Four days of a hearing about currency pairs is more than we mere mortals could possibly stand. Two things have really struck me about this case. The first is that I remember speaking to the Competition Commission about it in 2017. The recording is sadly lost now, but I remember so clearly how adamant they were that first, all the named banks were involved, and second, how they would wrap up this case in a couple of months. It's 2025 now, and it's still going. The other is the language used by the banks in their defence. Take Sim Tshabalala, the CEO of Standard Bank. I think it was the first time I'd seen a CEO of one of our big banks writing an op-ed in our media, back in 2023. It was on this topic. Remember how dangerous it is for a CEO, who was not on the Bloomberg terminal or the Reuters chat or the phone conversation, to say anything dogmatic about what happened. But this is what he said in News 24 two years ago: 'We're not playing for time or looking for a deal. When we say that we are innocent of currency manipulation, we mean it. We will not settle. Where we found that our people have engaged in wrongful conduct, we will act swiftly and will work with the relevant authorities. Where we find no evidence of wrongdoing, we will protect and defend our people – our most valuable assets.' This is a person putting their entire reputation on the line. He must believe it. Firmly, utterly, unshakeably. I have a horrible feeling in my belly that the Competition Commission might feel a little silly after all of this – that the Constitutional Court, after selecting a good nine-iron, might include a few choice words about the commission's conduct in its final ruling. But that won't be the end of it. I think the damage is done. Parties such as the EFF and MK, and perhaps even the SACP, who have every incentive to attack the system, banks and institutions, will just go on attacking them. I wouldn't be surprised if we hear that phrase 'monopoly capital' again. They might even turn, again, on our judges. It's quite strange in one way. Julius Malema has mouthed off time and time again about 'currency manipulation'. It almost makes you wonder what he might know about making a profit off the manipulation of a bank. In the meantime, bankers who are innocent will probably feel pretty frustrated, too. And not just with their putting. I think they'll feel they've been dragged into something that they have nothing to do with. I'll tell you this for free, though. Like any golf tournament I've ever watched, I can't wait for the whole saga to end. DM
