Latest news with #BoardofInquiry
Daily Maverick
25-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Twelve years on, families of soldiers killed in Battle of Bangui call for accountability
It has been 12 years since 15 South African National Defence Force (SANDF) soldiers died in and after the Battle of Bangui in the Central African Republic in March 2013. After years of broken promises, the families, desperate for answers, are once again calling on the government to provide answers. On 23 March 2013, 200 soldiers from an elite SANDF unit deployed to Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic (CAR), clashed with 7,000 Seleka rebels in a desperate battle that lasted several hours. The fierce encounter, later dubbed the Battle of Bangui, resulted in the deaths of 15 soldiers, a ceasefire, and the withdrawal of the remaining troops from a deployment that has since been shrouded in controversy. The nation has since moved on from the deadly clash, with the SANDF and government shifting focus to other contentious deployments elsewhere on the continent. However, for the families who lost loved ones in the Battle of Bangui, unfulfilled promises and unanswered questions from the Ministry of Defence and the South African government remain a daily reminder of their profound loss. After years of government silence, the families of the fallen soldiers have penned an open letter to President Cyril Ramaphosa, Defence Minister Angie Motshekga, and the South African government, demanding accountability. Chief among the families' frustrations is the lack of transparency around the deployment to CAR. Former president Jacob Zuma sent the SANDF's crack unit to assist then-president François Bozizé's forces in their fight against the Seleka rebels. Zuma made this decision without explaining why the troops were sent and without the authorisation of either the United Nations or the African Union — raising concerns over a breach of international law. The SANDF conducted a Board of Inquiry to investigate the battle and the deaths of the soldiers. However, the findings were never made public, and the details remained a mystery until author and journalist Warren Thompson won a legal battle in 2024 to access the Board of Inquiry's outcome. In May 2024, the court ordered the SANDF to release the report, but the families say they had still not received any of its findings. 'We demand transparency regarding the Memorandum of Understanding that governed this deployment, and the publication of the Board of Inquiry's findings. An open commission of inquiry into this matter is long overdue,' the families stated. 'As families, we crave closure and accountability. We deserve to know the truth about what transpired, even if it's painful. The ongoing court battles between the SANDF and the authors of the book The Battle of Bangui only add to our frustration and confusion.' Unfulfilled promises 'After the tragic loss of our loved ones, the SANDF and government officials made numerous promises to honour their memory and support us. However, these promises have proven to be empty words,' the families said. They explained that the government had pledged to erect a monument, rename government buildings, and produce a documentary to honour the fallen soldiers — none of which, they allege, has happened. In 2017, during a meeting with Zuma, CAR President Faustin-Archange Touadéra promised to build a monument in his country to honour the 15 soldiers killed in the battle. However, it remains unclear whether the monument was ever erected. The families also noted that former defence minister Thandi Modise had promised compensation for the loss of their loved ones — another promise they say never materialised. In 2023, Modise claimed in a written response to parliamentary questions from Democratic Alliance MP Kobus Marais that all affected families had received payouts. Battle of Bangui widow speaks out 'They are avoiding us. It's as if they want to force us into silence, whether we like it or not – but we refuse to be treated this way. This is the mentality we are fighting against,' said Kelebogile Bojane, the widow of Rifleman Bojane, in an interview with Daily Maverick. Bojane said the families of those who fell in the Battle of Bangui had made multiple attempts to reach out to the president and the Ministry of Defence, to no avail. She said the government had ceased all communication with the families, which is why they decided to write an open letter. On the issue of compensation, Bojane said that while the families had received a lump sum payment of R200,000, none of them had received the widow's pension to which they are entitled under the Military Pensions Act. 'When we asked about additional compensation, they said the deployment had no budget – but if there was no budget, why were our husbands sent there? And if there is a budget now, why can't we be paid?' Bojane asked. The SANDF's refusal to assist the families of the fallen soldiers has raised many questions for Bojane, chief among them being whether the deployment was lawful. 'We demand the establishment of a commission of inquiry, and it must be public so that we can obtain the details and find closure regarding what really happened. We're not simply going to forget. We lost husbands, we lost lives. They assume we should just move on – but if we forget, who do we hold accountable?' she said. The refusal to release the findings of the SANDF Board of Inquiry only further fuels the families' suspicions. 'Why are they not releasing it? What is it that they are hiding? They claim the deployment was based on a memorandum of understanding with the Central African Republic, but why can't they give us the findings? We need access to those documents. We need to know what happened. We deserve to know, and we are more entitled than anyone else,' Bojane said. Daily Maverick reached out to the Department of Defence and the Presidency for comment but did not receive a reply by the time of publication. The families are now calling on the government to: Conduct an open commission of inquiry into the deployment of troops to the Central African Republic in 2013. Publish the findings of the Board of Inquiry to provide the facts and recommendations that support the government's version of events, rather than leaving families to rely on hearsay. Provide evidence of compensation paid to the families, as former Defence Minister Thandi Modise indicated in her written parliamentary response. Fulfil the promises made to the families, including the construction of a monument and the renaming of government buildings. Produce the promised documentary about the Battle of Bangui. 'Our children will inherit this painful trauma that continues to be ignored, as though our loss meant nothing. We demand action, transparency, and accountability. It's time for the government to honour its commitments and provide us with the closure we deserve,' the families said. DM
West Australian
20-05-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
‘Admitted errors': Bombshell claim about Sofronoff report
The ACT integrity watchdog has admitted that scathing findings made against the head of an inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann contained errors, a court has been told. Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff KC chaired the Board of Inquiry into the criminal prosecution of Mr Lehrmann. The ACT Integrity Commission investigated Mr Sofronoff's conduct during his inquiry, in particular his decision to send a copy of the board's report to journalists from The Australian and ABC prior to its official release by the ACT government. The Commission in March found Mr Sofronoff had engaged in 'serious corrupt conduct', however he is now seeking to have the Operation Juno report overturned by the Federal Court. During a hearing in the Federal Court on Tuesday, Justice Wendy Abraham was told that lawyers for the Speaker of the ACT Legislative Assembly had argued that the report was covered by parliamentary privilege. That would mean that the report would not be able to be tendered to the court and therefore he could not seek judicial review. 'It follows that if the speaker's submissions are accepted, the court should refuse to admit the Operation Juno report and it seems to follow inevitably that the court would therefore refuse to entertain the allegations that have been made in the amended originating application,' barrister Alison Hammond, appearing for the speaker, told the court on Tuesday. 'And it would appear that the result would be that the proceedings are dismissed.' Documents filed by his legal team claim Mr Sofronoff was given the ability to do 'whatever (he) considers necessary or convenient for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry' as head of the inquiry. Mr Sofronoff said he 'subjectively considered that it was necessary or convenient for the fair and prompt conduct of the inquiry for him to engage with journalists'. The documents also claim the retired judge's actions were 'incapable of amounting to corrupt conduct' and the findings were 'seriously illogical, irrational and/or unreasonable'. Adam Pomerenke KC, acting for Mr Sofronoff, told the court that it had been conceded by the ACT Integrity Commission that the report contained errors. 'Your Honour may see from the respondent's submissions that ground two of the application has been conceded - that is to say there is now an admission of error in the report and it's significant,' Mr Pomerenke said. 'It is an admission that the finding that Mr Sofronoff's conduct could have constituted a contempt of court was not open, was unlawful. 'If our learned friends are right about the operation of parliamentary privilege, this court is powerless to address that error which we say is of a jurisdictional kind.' He said it would be 'most surprising' if such a report - which contains 'admitted errors of a serious kind' - was immune from judicial review. The court heard it was argued that the report came under parliamentary privilege at the point when it was submitted to the speaker. And Ms Hammond argued that the findings could have been challenged before the report was handed over. Justice Abraham asked: 'These proceedings were filed on the 19th of March. If they had been filed on the 17th of March it wouldn't be a problem?' 'Yes, Your Honour. But there is a good reason for the bright-line distinction,' Ms Hammond replied. Justice Abraham will hand down her judgment on the parliamentary privilege matter at a later date.
The Guardian
19-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Lehrmann inquiry head Walter Sofronoff engaged in ‘serious corrupt conduct' , review finds
Former Queensland judge Walter Sofronoff engaged in 'serious corrupt conduct', the ACT Integrity Commission has found, after reviewing his inquiry into the prosecution of Bruce Lehrmann. The commission released a report on Wednesday into Sofronoff's conduct as a Board of Inquiry into the prosecution. It found that 'Sofronoff's conduct fell within several elements of the definition of 'corrupt conduct'', through his disclosures to two journalists: Janet Albrechtsen at The Australian newspaper and Elizabeth Byrne at the ABC. The report found that '[Sofronoff's] disclosure of confidential material to journalists contrary to the obligations of confidentiality prescribed by the Inquiries Act could have amounted to offences against the Inquiries Act'. 'The disclosures were dishonestly concealed from persons involved in the Inquiry, in particular [prosecutor Shane] Drumgold and the [ACT] chief minister, which prevented them taking protective legal action.' The report said Sofronoff 'claimed that his conduct complied with the requirements of the Inquiries Act, and that he had acted in the public interest to ensure the media were adequately informed about the issues being investigated by his Inquiry and in a position to comment accurately about them. 'However, the commission concludes that he had not, in fact, acted in good faith and that his conduct, amounting to corrupt conduct within the meaning of the IC Act, undermined the integrity of the Board's processes and the fairness and probity of its proceedings to such an extent as to have been likely to have threatened public confidence in the integrity of that aspect of public administration. It therefore constituted serious corrupt conduct.' More details to follow
